OpenRFC.org Requests For Comments ... for the community
Welcome to OpenRFC
Home Full RFC index RFC humour Our technology
 
<< Previous <<      RFC 2989      >> Next >>    
Criteria for Evaluating AAA Protocols for Network Access.
B. Aboba, P. Calhoun, S. Glass, T. Hiller, P. McCann, H. Shiino, G. Zorn, G. Dommety, C.Perkins,B.Patil,D.Mitton,S.Manning,M.Beadles,P.Walsh,X.Chen,S.Sivalingham, A.Hameed,M.Munson,S.Jacobs,B.Lim,B.Hirschman, R.Hsu, Y.Xu, E.Campell, S.Baba, E.Jaques. November 2000.

 
[Direct link][Download PDF version][Download text version]
 

Network Working Group B. Aboba, Microsoft Request for Comments: 2989 P. Calhoun, S. Glass, Sun Microsystems, Inc. Category: Informational T. Hiller, P. McCann, H. Shiino, P. Walsh, Lucent G. Zorn, G. Dommety, Cisco Systems, Inc. C. Perkins, B. Patil, Nokia Telecommunications D. Mitton, S. Manning, Nortel Networks M. Beadles, SmartPipes Inc. X. Chen, Alcatel S. Sivalingham, Ericsson Wireless Communications A. Hameed, Fujitsu M. Munson, GTE Wireless S. Jacobs, GTE Laboratories B. Lim, LG Information & Communications, Ltd. B. Hirschman, Motorola R. Hsu, Qualcomm, Inc. H. Koo, Samsung Telecommunications America, Inc. M. Lipford, Sprint PCS E. Campbell, 3Com Corporation Y. Xu, Watercove Networks S. Baba, Toshiba America Research, Inc. E. Jaques, Vodaphone Airtouch November 2000 Criteria for Evaluating AAA Protocols for Network Access Status of this Memo This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000). All Rights Reserved. Abstract This document represents a summary of Authentication, Authorization, Accounting (AAA) protocol requirements for network access. In creating this document, inputs were taken from documents produced by the Network Access Server Requirements Next Generation (NASREQ), Roaming Operations (ROAMOPS), and MOBILEIP working groups, as well as from TIA 45.6. Aboba, et al. Informational [Page 1]
RFC 2989 Network Access AAA Evaluation Criteria November 2000 This document summarizes the requirements collected from those sources, separating requirements for authentication, authorization and accounting. Details on the requirements are available in the original documents. 1. Introduction This document represents a summary of AAA protocol requirements for network access. In creating this documents, inputs were taken from documents produced by the NASREQ [3], ROAMOPS [2], and MOBILEIP [5] working groups, as well as from TIA 45.6 [4]. This document summarizes the requirements collected from those sources, separating requirements for authentication, authorization and accounting. Details on the requirements are available in the original documents. 1.1. Requirements language In this document, the key words "MAY", "MUST, "MUST NOT", "optional", "recommended", "SHOULD", and "SHOULD NOT", are to be interpreted as described in [1]. Please note that the requirements specified in this document are to be used in evaluating AAA protocol submissions. As such, the requirements language refers to capabilities of these protocols; the protocol documents will specify whether these features are required, recommended, or optional. For example, requiring that a protocol support confidentiality is NOT the same thing as requiring that all protocol traffic be encrypted. A protocol submission is not compliant if it fails to satisfy one or more of the MUST or MUST NOT requirements for the capabilities that it implements. A protocol submission that satisfies all the MUST, MUST NOT, SHOULD and SHOULD NOT requirements for its capabilities is said to be "unconditionally compliant"; one that satisfies all the MUST and MUST NOT requirements but not all the SHOULD or SHOULD NOT requirements for its protocols is said to be "conditionally compliant." Aboba, et al. Informational [Page 2]
RFC 2989 Network Access AAA Evaluation Criteria November 2000 1.2. Terminology Accounting The act of collecting information on resource usage for the purpose of trend analysis, auditing, billing, or cost allocation. Administrative Domain An internet, or a collection of networks, computers, and databases under a common administration. Computer entities operating in a common administration may be assumed to share administratively created security associations. Attendant A node designed to provide the service interface between a client and the local domain. Authentication The act of verifying a claimed identity, in the form of a pre-existing label from a mutually known name space, as the originator of a message (message authentication) or as the end-point of a channel (entity authentication). Authorization The act of determining if a particular right, such as access to some resource, can be granted to the presenter of a particular credential. Billing The act of preparing an invoice. Broker A Broker is an entity that is in a different administrative domain from both the home AAA server and the local ISP, and which provides services, such as facilitating payments between the local ISP and home administrative entities. There are two different types of brokers; proxy and routing. Client A node wishing to obtain service from an attendant within an administrative domain. End-to-End End-to-End is the security model that requires that security information be able to traverse, and be validated even when an AAA message is processed by intermediate nodes such as proxies, brokers, etc. Aboba, et al. Informational [Page 3]
RFC 2989 Network Access AAA Evaluation Criteria November 2000 Foreign Domain An administrative domain, visited by a Mobile IP client, and containing the AAA infrastructure needed to carry out the necessary operations enabling Mobile IP registrations. From the point of view of the foreign agent, the foreign domain is the local domain. Home Domain An administrative domain, containing the network whose prefix matches that of a mobile node's home address, and containing the AAA infrastructure needed to carry out the necessary operations enabling Mobile IP registrations. From the point of view of the home agent, the home domain is the local domain. Hop-by-hop Hop-by-hop is the security model that requires that each direct set of peers in a proxy network share a security association, and the security information does not traverse a AAA entity. Inter-domain Accounting Inter-domain accounting is the collection of information on resource usage of an entity within an administrative domain, for use within another administrative domain. In inter-domain accounting, accounting packets and session records will typically cross administrative boundaries. Intra-domain Accounting Intra-domain accounting is the collection of information on resource within an administrative domain, for use within that domain. In intra-domain accounting, accounting packets and session records typically do not cross administrative boundaries. Local Domain An administrative domain containing the AAA infrastructure of immediate interest to a Mobile IP client when it is away from home. Proxy A AAA proxy is an entity that acts as both a client and a server. When a request is received from a client, the proxy acts as a AAA server. When the same request needs to be forwarded to another AAA entity, the proxy acts as a AAA client. Aboba, et al. Informational [Page 4]
RFC 2989 Network Access AAA Evaluation Criteria November 2000 Local Proxy A Local Proxy is a AAA server that satisfies the definition of a Proxy, and exists within the same administrative domain as the network device (e.g., NAS) that issued the AAA request. Typically, a local proxy will enforce local policies prior to forwarding responses to the network devices, and are generally used to multiplex AAA messages from a large number of network devices. Network Access Identifier The Network Access Identifier (NAI) is the userID submitted by the client during network access authentication. In roaming, the purpose of the NAI is to identify the user as well as to assist in the routing of the authentication request. The NAI may not necessarily be the same as the user's e-mail address or the user-ID submitted in an application layer authentication. Routing Broker A Routing Broker is a AAA entity that satisfies the definition of a Broker, but is NOT in the transmission path of AAA messages between the local ISP and the home domain's AAA servers. When a request is received by a Routing Broker, information is returned to the AAA requester that includes the information necessary for it to be able to contact the Home AAA server directly. Certain organizations providing Routing Broker services MAY also act as a Certificate Authority, allowing the Routing Broker to return the certificates necessary for the local ISP and the home AAA servers to communicate securely. Non-Proxy Broker A Routing Broker is occasionally referred to as a Non-Proxy Broker. Proxy Broker A Proxy Broker is a AAA entity that satisfies the definition of a Broker, and acts as a Transparent Proxy by acting as the forwarding agent for all AAA messages between the local ISP and the home domain's AAA servers. Real-time Accounting Real-time accounting involves the processing of information on resource usage within a defined time window. Time constraints are typically imposed in order to limit financial risk. Aboba, et al. Informational [Page 5]
RFC 2989 Network Access AAA Evaluation Criteria November 2000 Roaming Capability Roaming capability can be loosely defined as the ability to use any one of multiple Internet service providers (ISPs), while maintaining a formal, customer-vendor relationship with only one. Examples of cases where roaming capability might be required include ISP "confederations" and ISP- provided corporate network access support. Session record A session record represents a summary of the resource consumption of a user over the entire session. Accounting gateways creating the session record may do so by processing interim accounting events. Transparent Proxy A Transparent Proxy is a AAA server that satisfies the definition of a Proxy, but does not enforce any local policies (meaning that it does not add, delete or modify attributes or modify information within messages it forwards). 2. Requirements Summary The AAA protocol evaluation criteria for network access are summarized below. For details on the requirements, please consult the documents referenced in the footnotes. Aboba, et al. Informational [Page 6]
RFC 2989 Network Access AAA Evaluation Criteria November 2000 2.1. General requirements These requirements apply to all aspects of AAA and thus are considered general requirements. +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | | | General | NASREQ | ROAMOPS | MOBILE | | Reqts. | | | IP | | | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | | | Scalability | M | M | M | | a | 12 | 3 | 30 39 | | | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | | | Fail-over | M | | M | | b | 12 | | 31 | | | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | | | Mutual auth | M | | M | | AAA client/server | 16 | | 30 | | c | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | | | Transmission level | | M | S | | security | | 6 | 31 39 | | d | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | | | Data object | M | M | M | | Confidentiality | 26 | 6 | 40 | | e | | | | | | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | | | Data object | M | M | M | | Integrity | 16 | 6 | 31 39 | | f | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | | | Certificate transport | M | | S/M | | g | 42 | |31,33/46 | | | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Aboba, et al. Informational [Page 7]
RFC 2989 Network Access AAA Evaluation Criteria November 2000 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | | | Reliable AAA transport | M | | M | | mechanism | 22 | | 31 32 | | h | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | | | Run Over IPv4 | M | M | M | | | 11 | 1 | 33 | | | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | | | Run Over IPv6 | M | | S | | | 11 | 1 | 47 | | | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | | | Support Proxy and | M | | M | | Routing Brokers | 12 | | 31 39 | | i | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | | | Auditability | S | | | | j | 25 | | | | | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | | | Dual App and Transport | | O | M | | Security not required | | 6 | 40 | | k | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | | | Ability to carry | M | | S | | service-specific attr. | 43 | | 31 33 | | l | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Key M = MUST S = SHOULD O = MAY N = MUST NOT B = SHOULD NOT Aboba, et al. Informational [Page 8]
RFC 2989 Network Access AAA Evaluation Criteria November 2000 Clarifications [a] The AAA protocol must be capable of supporting millions of users and tens of thousands of simultaneous requests. The AAA architecture and protocol MUST be capable of supporting tens of thousands of devices, AAA servers, proxies and brokers. [b] In the event of failure to communicate with a given server, the protocol must provide a mechanism to change service to another backup or secondary server. [c] This requirement refers to the ability to support mutual authentication between the AAA client and server. [d] The AAA protocol requires authentication, integrity protection and confidentiality at the transmission layer. This security model is also referred to as hop-by-hop security, whereas the security is established between two communicating peers. All of the security is removed when the AAA message is processed by a receiving AAA entity. [e] The AAA protocol requires confidentiality at the object level, where an object consists of one or more attributes. Object level confidentiality implies that only the target AAA entity for whom the data is ultimately destined may decrypt the data, regardless of the fact that the message may traverse one or more intermediate AAA entities (e.g., proxies, brokers). [f] The AAA protocol requires authentication and integrity protection at the object level, which consists of one or more attributes. Object level authentication must be persistent across one or more intermediate AAA entity (e.g., proxy, broker, etc), meaning that any AAA entity in a proxy chain may verify the authentication. This implies that data that is covered by object level security CANNOT be modified by intermediate servers. [g] The AAA protocol MUST be capable of transporting certificates. This requirement is intended as an optimization, in lieu of requiring that an out-of-band protocol be used to fetch certificates. [h] This requirement refers to resilience against packet loss, including: 1. Hop-by-hop retransmission and fail-over so that reliability does not solely depend on single hop transport retransmission. Aboba, et al. Informational [Page 9]
RFC 2989 Network Access AAA Evaluation Criteria November 2000 2. Control of the retransmission mechanism by the AAA application. 3. Acknowledgment by the transport that a message was delivered successfully, separate from message semantics or syntax evaluation. 5. Piggy-backing of acknowledgments in AAA messages. 6. Timely delivery of AAA responses. [i] In the Mobile IP AAA architecture, brokers can be in the forwarding path, in which case they act as transparent proxies (proxy brokers). Alternatively, it is also possible to conceive of brokers operating as certifying authorities outside of the forwarding path (routing brokers). [j] An auditable process is one in which it is possible to definitively determine what actions have been performed on AAA packets as they travel from the home AAA server to the network device and back. [k] The AAA protocol MUST allow communication to be secured. However, the AAA protocol MUST also allow an underlying security service (e.g., IP Security) to be used. When the latter is used, the former MUST NOT be required. [l] The AAA protocol MUST be extensible by third parties (e.g., other IETF Working Groups), in order to define attributes that are specific to the service being defined. This requirement simply means that the AAA protocol MUST allow groups other than the AAA WG to define standard attributes. Aboba, et al. Informational [Page 10]
RFC 2989 Network Access AAA Evaluation Criteria November 2000 2.2. Authentication Requirements +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | | | Authentication | NASREQ | ROAMOPS | MOBILE | | Reqts. | | | IP | | | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | | | NAI Support | M | M | S/M | | a | 9 | 2 |32,34,39/| | | | | 40 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | | | CHAP Support | M | M | | | b | 10 | 3 | | | | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | | | EAP Support | M | S | | | c | 10 | 3 | | | | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | | | PAP/Clear-Text Support | M | B | | | d | 26 | 3 | | | | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | | | Re-authentication | M | | S | | on demand | 17 | | 33 | | e | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | | | Authorization Only | M | | | | without Authentication | 9 | | | | f | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Key M = MUST S = SHOULD O = MAY N = MUST NOT B = SHOULD NOT Aboba, et al. Informational [Page 11]
RFC 2989 Network Access AAA Evaluation Criteria November 2000 Clarifications [a] The AAA protocol MUST allow the use of Network Access Identifiers (NAI) [8] to identify users and/or devices. [b] The AAA protocol MUST allow CHAP [20] authentication information to be transported. This is commonly used by Network Access Servers that request authentication of a PPP user. [c] The AAA protocol MUST allow for Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) [14] payload to be transported. Since some EAP authentication mechanisms require more than one round trip, the AAA protocol must allow for such authentication mechanisms to be used. The actual EAP authentication mechanism negotiated MUST be transparent to the AAA protocol. When EAP is used, authentication typically occurs between the user being authenticated and his/her home AAA server. [d] While PAP is deprecated, it is still in widespread use for its original intended purpose, which is support of clear-text passwords. As a result, a AAA protocol will need to be able to securely transport clear-text passwords. This includes providing for confidentiality of clear-text passwords traveling over the wire, as well as protecting against disclosure of clear-text passwords to proxies in the forwarding path. [e] The AAA protocol MUST allow for a user to be re-authenticated on-demand. The protocol MUST allow for this event to be triggered by either the user, access device (AAA client), or the home or visited AAA server. [f] The AAA protocol MUST NOT require that credentials of the user be provided during authorization. The AAA protocol supports authorization by identification or assertion only. Aboba, et al. Informational [Page 12]
RFC 2989 Network Access AAA Evaluation Criteria November 2000 2.3. Authorization Requirements +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | | | Authorization | NASREQ | ROAMOPS | MOBILE | | Reqts. | | | IP | | | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Static and Dynamic | | | | | IPv4/6 Address Assign. | M | M | M | | a | 11 | 5 | 32 36 | | | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | | | RADIUS gateway | M | M | M | | capability | 44 | 3 | 45 | | b | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | | | Reject | M | M | M | | capability | 12 | 4 | 39 | | c | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | | | Precludes layer 2 | N | N | | | tunneling | 11 | 5 | | | | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | | | Re-Authorization on | M | | S | | demand | 18 | | 30 33 | | d | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | | | Support for Access Rules,| M | | | | Restrictions, Filters | 11, 19 | | | | e | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | | | State Reconciliation | M | | | | f | 20 | | | | | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | | | Unsolicited Disconnect | M | | | | g | 18 | | | | | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Aboba, et al. Informational [Page 13]
RFC 2989 Network Access AAA Evaluation Criteria November 2000 Key M = MUST S = SHOULD O = MAY N = MUST NOT B = SHOULD NOT Clarifications [a] The AAA protocol MUST allow a server to provide a static or dynamic address during the authorization phase of a user and/or device. The address assigned MUST be either of type IPv4 or IPv6. If both the client AND the server are aware of a pre- configured address, then it is considered static. Anything else is dynamic. [b] This requirement refers to the ability of a new AAA protocol be sufficiently compatible with the large installed base of attributes for existing approaches (RADIUS), such that a server implementation could speak both protocols, or translate between them. [c] This requirement refers to the ability of a proxy broker to deny access without forwarding the access request to the AAA server, or to deny access after receiving an access accept from the AAA server. [d] This requirement refers to the ability of the AAA client or server to trigger re-authorization, or to the ability of the server to send updated authorization information to the device, such as "stop service." Authorization can allow for a time period, then additional authorization can be sought to continue. A server can initially authorize a user to connect and receive services, but later decide the user is no longer allowed use of the service, for example after N minutes. Authorizations can have a time limit. Re-authorization does not necessarily imply re-authentication. [e] This requirement refers to the ability to of the protocol to describe access operational limitations and authorization restrictions to usage to the NAS which includes (but is not limited to): 1. Session expirations and Idle Timeouts 2. Packet filters 3. Static routes 4. QoS parameters Aboba, et al. Informational [Page 14]
RFC 2989 Network Access AAA Evaluation Criteria November 2000 [f] This requirement refers to the ability of the NAS to use the AAA server to manage resource allocation state. This capability can assist with, but it is not synonymous with, simultaneous user login control, port usage limitations, or IP address pooling. The design must provide for recovery from data loss due to a variety of faults, including NAS and AAA server reboots, and NAS/AAA server communication outages, and MUST be independent of the accounting stream. The granularity of the recovery of state information after an outage may be on the order of a fraction of a minute. In order to provide for state recovery, explicit session/resource status and update and disconnect messages will be required. Because of potential multi-domain issues, only systems that allocate or use a resource should track its state. [g] This requirement refers to the ability of the AAA server to request the NAS to disconnect an active session for authorization policy reasons. Aboba, et al. Informational [Page 15]
RFC 2989 Network Access AAA Evaluation Criteria November 2000 2.4. Accounting Requirements +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | | | Accounting | NASREQ | ROAMOPS | MOBILE | | Reqts. | | | IP | | | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | | | Real-time accounting | M | M | M | | a | 14 | 7 | 31 | | | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | | | Mandatory Compact | | M | | | Encoding | | 7 | | | b | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | | | Accounting Record | | M | M | | Extensibility | | 7 | 33 | | | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | | | Batch Accounting | S | | | | c | 21 | | | | | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | | | Guaranteed Delivery | M | | M | | d | 22 | | 31 | | | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | | | Accounting Time Stamps | M | | M | | e | 23 | | 40 | | | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | | | Dynamic Accounting | M | | | | f | 48 | | | | | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Aboba, et al. Informational [Page 16]
RFC 2989 Network Access AAA Evaluation Criteria November 2000 Key M = MUST S = SHOULD O = MAY N = MUST NOT B = SHOULD NOT Clarifications [a] This requirement may be loosely defined as reporting synchronously with events. Typically the time window is on the order of seconds, not milliseconds. [b] The AAA protocol's Accounting data format MUST NOT be bloated, imposing a large overhead for one or more accounting data elements. [c] This requirement refers to the ability to buffer or store multiple accounting records, and send them together at some later time. [d] This is an application layer acknowledgment. This is sent when the receiving server is willing to take responsibility for the message data. [e] This requirement refers to the ability to reflect the time of occurrence of events such as log-on, logoff, authentication, authorization and interim accounting. It also implies the ability to provide for unambiguous time-stamps. [f] This requirement refers to the ability to account for dynamic authentication and authorization. To support this, there can be multiple accounting records for a single session. 2.5. Unique Mobile IP requirements In addition to the above requirements, Mobile IP also has the following additional requirements: Aboba, et al. Informational [Page 17]
RFC 2989 Network Access AAA Evaluation Criteria November 2000 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | | | Encoding of Mobile IP | | | M | | registration messages | | | 33 | | | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | | | Firewall friendly | | | M | | a | | | 35 | | | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | | | Allocation of local Home | | | S/M | | agent | | | 37/41 | | | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Key M = MUST S = SHOULD O = MAY N = MUST NOT B = SHOULD NOT Clarifications [a] A firewall friendly protocol is one which is designed to accommodate a firewall acting as a proxy. For example, this would permit a Home Agent AAA server situated behind a firewall to be reachable from the Internet for the purposes of providing AAA services to a Mobile IP Foreign Agent. Notes [1] Section 4.2.1 of [2] [2] Section 4.2.2 of [2]. Also see [8]. [3] Section 4.2.3 of [2]. Also see [14]. [4] Section 4.2.4 of [2]. [5] Section 4.2.5 of [2]. [6] Section 4.2.6 of [2]. [7] Section 4.3 of [2]. [8] Section 6 of [3]. Also see [6]. [9] Section 8.2.2.2 of [3]. Also see [14]. [10] Section 8.2.2.1 of [3]. Also see [14]. [11] Section 8.3.2.2 of [3]. Also see [7]. [12] Section 8.1.1 of [3]. [13] Section 8.1.4.4 of [3]. [14] Section 8.4.1.2 of [3]. Aboba, et al. Informational [Page 18]
RFC 2989 Network Access AAA Evaluation Criteria November 2000 [15] Section 8.4.2 of [3]. [16] Section 8.1.3 of [3]. [17] Section 8.2.1.2 of [3]. [18] Section 8.3.1.1 of [3]. [19] Section 8.3.2.1 of [3]. Also see [7]. [20] Section 8.3.2.3 of [3]. Also see [6], [7]. [21] Section 8.4.1.3 of [3]. [22] Section 8.4.1.1 of [3]. [23] Section 8.4.1.4 of [3]. [24] Section 8.4.3.1 of [3]. [25] Section 8.4.3.2 of [3]. [26] Section 8.2.3.1 of [3]. [27] Section 8.3.3.1 of [3]. [28] Section 8.1.4.1 of [3]. [29] Refer [15] [30] Section 3 of [5] [31] Section 3.1 of [5] [32] Section 4 of [5] [33] Section 5 of [5] [34] Section 5.1 of [5] [35] Section 5.2 of [5] [36] Section 5.3 of [5] [37] Section 5.4 of [5] [38] Section 5.5 of [5] [39] Section 6 of [5] [40] Section 5.1 of [4] [41] Section 5.2.2 of [4] [42] Section 8.2.2.2 of [3] [43] Section 8.1.2.3 of [3] [44] Section 8.1.2.2 of [3] [45] Section 5.4 of [4] [46] Section 7 of [4] [47] Section 8 of [5] [48] Section 8.4.1.5 of [3] 3. References [1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [2] Aboba, B. and G. Zorn, "Criteria for Evaluating Roaming Protocols", RFC 2477, January 1999. [3] Beadles, M. and D. Mitton, "Criteria for Evaluating Network Access Server Protocols", Work in Progress. [4] Hiller, T., et al., "Cdma2000 Wireless Data Requirements for AAA", Work in Progress. Aboba, et al. Informational [Page 19]
RFC 2989 Network Access AAA Evaluation Criteria November 2000 [5] Glass, S., Hiller, T., Jacobs, S. and C. Perkins, "Mobile IP Authentication, Authorization, and Accounting Requirements", RFC 2977, October 2000. [6] Mitton, D., Beadles, M., "Network Access Server Requirements Next Generation (NASREQNG) NAS Model", RFC 2881, July 2000. [7] Mitton, D., "Network Access Server Requirements: Extended RADIUS Practices", RFC 2882, July 2000. [8] Aboba, B. and M. Beadles, "The Network Access Identifier", RFC 2486, January 1999. [9] Rigney, C., Willens, S., Rubens, A. and W. Simpson, "Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)", RFC 2865, June 2000. [10] Rigney, C., "RADIUS Accounting", RFC 2866, June 2000. [11] Simpson, W., Editor, "The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP)", STD 51, RFC 1661, July 1994. [12] Sklower, K., Lloyd, B., McGregor, G., Carr, D. and T. Coradetti, "The PPP Multilink Protocol (MP)", RFC 1990, August 1996. [13] Simpson, W., Editor, "PPP LCP Extensions", RFC 1570, January 1994. [14] Blunk, L. and J. Vollbrecht, "PPP Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP)", RFC 2284, March 1998. [15] Solomon, J. and S. Glass, "Mobile-IPv4 Configuration Option for PPP IPCP", RFC 2290, Feb 1998 [16] Calhoun, P. and C. Perkins, "Mobile IP Network Access Identifier Extension for IPv4", RFC 2794, March 2000. [17] Perkins, C., "IP Mobility Support", RFC 2002, Oct 1996. [18] Johnson, D. and C. Perkins, "Mobility Support in IPv6", Work in Progress. [19] Aboba, B. and J. Vollbrecht, "Proxy Chaining and Policy Implementation in Roaming", RFC 2607, June 1999. [20] Simpson, W., "PPP Challenge Handshake Authentication Protocol (CHAP)", RFC 1994, August 1996. Aboba, et al. Informational [Page 20]
RFC 2989 Network Access AAA Evaluation Criteria November 2000 4. Security Considerations This document, being a requirements document, does not have any security concerns. The security requirements on protocols to be evaluated using this document are described in the referenced documents. 5. IANA Considerations This memo does not create any new number spaces for IANA administration. 6. Acknowledgments Thanks to the members of the Mobile IP, AAA, and NASREQ working groups who have discussed and commented on these requirements. We would also like to thank the members of the AAA evaluation team, Mike St. Johns, Barney Wolf, Mark Stevens, David Nelson, Dave Mitton, Basavaraj Patil and Stuart Barkley for their thorough review of this document. 7. Authors' Addresses Bernard Aboba Microsoft Corporation One Microsoft Way Redmond, WA 98052 Phone: +1 425-936-6605 Fax: +1 425-936-7329 EMail: bernarda@microsoft.com Pat R. Calhoun Network and Security Research Center, Sun Labs Sun Microsystems, Inc. 15 Network Circle Menlo Park, CA 94025 Phone: +1 650-786-7733 EMail: pcalhoun@eng.sun.com Aboba, et al. Informational [Page 21]
RFC 2989 Network Access AAA Evaluation Criteria November 2000 Steven M. Glass Sun Microsystems 1 Network Drive Burlington, MA 01845 Phone: +1 781-442-0504 Fax: +1 781-442-1677 EMail: steven.glass@sun.com Tom Hiller Wireless Data Standards & Architectures Lucent Technologies 263 Shuman Drive Room 1HP2F-218 Naperville, IL 60563 Phone: +1 630-976-7673 EMail: tom.hiller@lucent.com Peter J. McCann Lucent Technologies Rm 2Z-305 263 Shuman Blvd Naperville, IL 60566 Phone: +1 630-713 9359 EMail: mccap@lucent.com Hajime Shiino Lucent Technologies Japan Ltd. 25 Mori Bldg. 1-4-30 Roppongi, Minato-ku Tokyo Japan Phone: +81-3-5561-3695 EMail: hshiino@lucent.com Glen Zorn Cisco Systems, Inc. 500 108th Avenue N.E., Suite 500 Bellevue, WA 98004 Phone: +1 425-468-0955 EMail: gwz@cisco.com Aboba, et al. Informational [Page 22]
RFC 2989 Network Access AAA Evaluation Criteria November 2000 Gopal Dommety IOS Network Protocols Cisco Systems, Inc. 170 West Tasman Drive San Jose, CA 95134-1706 Phone: +1 408-525-1404 Fax: +1 408-526-4952 EMail: gdommety@cisco.com Charles E. Perkins Communications Systems Lab Nokia Research Center 313 Fairchild Drive Mountain View, CA Phone: +1 650-625-2986 Fax: +1-650-625-2502 EMail: charliep@iprg.nokia.com Basavaraj Patil Nokia Networks 6000 Connection Dr. Irving, TX 75039 Phone: +1 972-894-6709 Fax: +1 972-894-5349 EMail: Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com David Mitton Nortel Networks 880 Technology Park Drive Billerica, MA 01821 Phone: +1 978-288-4570 EMail: dmitton@nortelnetworks.com Serge Manning Nortel Networks 2201 Lakeside Blvd Richardson, TX 75082-4399 Phone: +1 972-684-7277 EMail: smanning@nortelnetworks.com Aboba, et al. Informational [Page 23]
RFC 2989 Network Access AAA Evaluation Criteria November 2000 Mark Anthony Beadles SmartPipes, Inc. 565 Metro Place South Suite 300 Dublin, OH 43017 Phone: +1 614-923-5657 EMail: mbeadles@smartpipes.com Pat Walsh Lucent Technologies 263 Shuman Blvd. 1F-545 Naperville, IL Phone: +1 630-713-5063 EMail: walshp@lucent.com Xing Chen Alcatel USA 1000 Coit Road Plano, TX 75075 Phone: +1 972-519-4142 Fax: +1 972-519-3300 EMail: xing.chen@usa.alcatel.com Sanjeevan Sivalingham Ericsson Wireless Communications Inc., Rm Q-356C 6455 Lusk Blvd San Diego, CA 92126 Phone: +1 858-332-5670 EMail: s.sivalingham@ericsson.com Alan Hameed Fujitsu 2801 Telecom Parkway Richardson, TX 75082 Phone: +1 972-479-2089 Aboba, et al. Informational [Page 24]
RFC 2989 Network Access AAA Evaluation Criteria November 2000 Mark Munson GTE Wireless One GTE Place Alpharetta, GA 30004 Phone: +1 678-339-4439 EMail: mmunson@mobilnet.gte.com Stuart Jacobs Secure Systems Department GTE Laboratories 40 Sylvan Road, Waltham, MA 02451-1128 Phone: +1 781-466-3076 Fax: +1 781-466-2838 EMail: sjacobs@gte.com Byung-Keun Lim LG Electronics, Ltd. 533, Hogye-dong, Dongan-ku, Anyang-shi, Kyungki-do,431-080 Korea Phone: +82-31-450-7199 Fax: +82-31-450-7050 EMail: bklim@lgic.co.kr Brent Hirschman 1501 Shure Dr. Arlington Hieghts, IL 60006 Phone: +1 847-632-1563 EMail: qa4053@email.mot.com Raymond T. Hsu Qualcomm Inc. 6455 Lusk Blvd. San Diego, CA 92121 Phone: +1 619-651-3623 EMail: rhsu@qualcomm.com Aboba, et al. Informational [Page 25]
RFC 2989 Network Access AAA Evaluation Criteria November 2000 Haeng S. Koo Samsung Telecommunications America, Inc. 1130 E. Arapaho Road Richardson, TX 75081 Phone: +1 972-761-7755 EMail: hskoo@sta.samsung.com Mark A. Lipford Sprint PCS 8001 College Blvd.; Suite 210 Overland Park, KS 66210 Phone: +1 913-664-8335 EMail: mlipfo01@sprintspectrum.com Ed Campbell 3Com Corporation 1800 W. Central Rd. Mount Prospect, IL 60056 Phone: +1 847-342-6769 EMail: ed_campbell@3com.com Name: Yingchun Xu WaterCove Networks One Century Centre, Suite 550 1750 E. Golf Road Schaumburg, IL Phone: +1 847-477-9280 EMail: yxu@watercove.com Shinichi Baba Toshiba America Research, Inc. PO Box 136, Convent Station, NJ 07961-0136 Phone: +1 973-829-4795 EMail: sbaba@tari.toshiba.com Aboba, et al. Informational [Page 26]
RFC 2989 Network Access AAA Evaluation Criteria November 2000 Eric Jaques Vodafone AirTouch 2999 Oak Road, MS-750 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Phone: +1 925-279-6142 EMail: ejaques@akamail.com 8. Intellectual Property Statement The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of claims of rights made available for publication and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementors or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF Secretariat. The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive Director. Aboba, et al. Informational [Page 27]
RFC 2989 Network Access AAA Evaluation Criteria November 2000 9. Full Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000). All Rights Reserved. This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than English. The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. This document and the information contained herein is provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Acknowledgement Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society. Aboba, et al. Informational [Page 28]

   

[Home] [Full RFC index] [RFC humour] [Our technology]

Copyright © Inter-Corporate Computer & Network Services, Inc.  All rights reserved.
All trademarks and RFC contents are the property of their respective owners.