Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools


Network Working Group B. Aboba Request for Comments: 3575 Microsoft Updates: 2865 July 2003 Category: Standard Track

                   IANA Considerations for RADIUS
            (Remote Authentication Dial In User Service)

Status of this Memo

 This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
 Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
 improvements.  Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
 Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
 and status of this protocol.  Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003).  All Rights Reserved.


 This document describes the IANA considerations for the Remote
 Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS).
 This document updates RFC 2865.

1. Introduction

 This document provides guidance to the Internet Assigned Numbers
 Authority (IANA) regarding registration of values related to the
 Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS), defined in
 [RFC2865], in accordance with BCP 26, [RFC2434].  It also reserves
 Packet Type Codes that are or have been in use on the Internet.

1.1. Specification of Requirements

 In this document, several words are used to signify the requirements
 of the specification.  These words are often capitalized.  The key
 "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED",  "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document
 are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

Aboba Standards Track [Page 1] RFC 3575 IANA Considerations for RADIUS July 2003

1.2. Terminology

 The following terms are used here with the meanings defined in BCP
 26:  "name space", "assigned value", "registration".
 The following policies are used here with the meanings defined in BCP
 26: "Private Use", "First Come First Served", "Expert Review",
 "Specification Required", "IESG Approval", "IETF Consensus",
 "Standards Action".

2. IANA Considerations

 There are three name spaces in RADIUS that require registration:
 Packet Type Codes, Attribute Types, and Attribute Values (for certain
 Attributes).  This document creates no new IANA registries, since a
 RADIUS registry was created by [RFC2865].
 RADIUS is not intended as a general-purpose protocol, and allocations
 SHOULD NOT be made for purposes unrelated to Authentication,
 Authorization or Accounting.

2.1. Recommended Registration Policies

 For registration requests where a Designated Expert should be
 consulted, the responsible IESG area director should appoint the
 Designated Expert.  The intention is that any allocation will be
 accompanied by a published RFC.  However, the Designated Expert can
 approve allocations once it seems clear that an RFC will be
 published, allowing for the allocation of values prior to the
 document being approved for publication as an RFC.  The Designated
 Expert will post a request to the AAA WG mailing list (or a successor
 designated by the Area Director) for comment and review, including an
 Internet-Draft.  Before a period of 30 days has passed, the
 Designated Expert will either approve or deny the registration
 request, publish a notice of the decision to the AAA WG mailing list
 or its successor, and inform IANA of its decision.  A denial notice
 must be justified by an explanation and, in the cases where it is
 possible, concrete suggestions on how the request can be modified so
 as to become acceptable.
 Packet Type Codes have a range from 1 to 253.  RADIUS Type Codes 1-5
 and 11-13 were allocated in [RFC2865], while Type Codes 40-45,
 250-253 are allocated by this document.  Type Codes 250-253 are
 allocated for Experimental Uses, and 254-255 are reserved.  Packet
 Type Codes 6-10, 12-13, 21-34, 50-51 have no meaning defined by an
 IETF RFC, but are reserved until a specification is provided for
 them.  This is being done to avoid interoperability problems with
 software that implements non-standard RADIUS extensions that are or

Aboba Standards Track [Page 2] RFC 3575 IANA Considerations for RADIUS July 2003

 have been in use on the Internet.  Because a new Packet Type has
 considerable impact on interoperability, a new Packet Type Code
 requires IESG Approval.  The intention is that any allocation will be
 accompanied by a published RFC.  Type Codes 52-249 should be
 allocated first; when these are exhausted, Type Codes 14-20, 35-39,
 46-49 may be allocated.  For a list of Type Codes, see Appendix A.
 Attribute Types have a range from 1 to 255, and are the scarcest
 resource in RADIUS, thus must be allocated with care.  Attributes
 1-53,55,60-88,90-91,94-100 have been allocated, with 17 and 21
 available for re-use.  Attributes 17, 21, 54, 56-59, 89, 101-191 may
 be allocated by IETF Consensus.  It is recommended that attributes 17
 and 21 be used only after all others are exhausted.
 Note that RADIUS defines a mechanism for Vendor-Specific extensions
 (Attribute 26) for functions specific only to one vendor's
 implementation of RADIUS, where no interoperability is deemed useful.
 For functions specific only to one vendor's implementation of RADIUS,
 the use of that should be encouraged instead of the allocation of
 global attribute types.
 As noted in [RFC2865]:
    Attribute Type Values 192-223 are reserved for experimental use,
    values 224-240 are reserved for implementation-specific use, and
    values 241-255 are reserved and should not be used.
 Therefore Attribute Type values 192-240 are considered Private Use,
 and values 241-255 require Standards Action.
 Certain attributes (for example, NAS-Port-Type) in RADIUS define a
 list of values to correspond with various meanings.  There can be 4
 billion (2^32) values for each attribute.  Additional values can be
 allocated by the Designated Expert.  The exception to this policy is
 the Service-Type attribute (6), whose values define new modes of
 operation for RADIUS.  Values 1-16 of the Service-Type attribute have
 been allocated.  Allocation of new Service-Type values are by IETF
 Consensus.  The intention is that any allocation will be accompanied
 by a published RFC.

3. References

3.1. Normative References

 [RFC2119]      Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
                Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

Aboba Standards Track [Page 3] RFC 3575 IANA Considerations for RADIUS July 2003

 [RFC2434]      Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing
                an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC
                2434, October 1998.
 [RFC2865]      Rigney, C., Willens, S., Rubens, A. and W. Simpson,
                "Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)",
                RFC 2865, June 2000.

3.2. Informative References

 [RFC2607]      Aboba, B. and J. Vollbrecht, "Proxy Chaining and
                Policy Implementation in Roaming", RFC 2607, June
 [RFC2866]      Rigney, C., "RADIUS Accounting", RFC 2866, June 2000.
 [RFC2867]      Zorn, G., Aboba, B. and D. Mitton, "RADIUS Accounting
                Modifications for Tunnel Protocol Support", RFC 2867,
                June 2000.
 [RFC2868]      Zorn, G., Leifer, D., Rubens, A., Shriver, J.,
                Holdrege, M. and I. Goyret, "RADIUS Attributes for
                Tunnel Protocol Support", RFC 2868, June 2000.
 [RFC2869]      Rigney, C., Willats, W. and P. Calhoun, "RADIUS
                Extensions", RFC 2869, June 2000.
 [RFC2869bis]   Aboba, B. and P. Calhoun, "RADIUS Support for
                Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP)", Work in
 [RFC2882]      Mitton, D., "Network Access Servers Requirements:
                Extended RADIUS Practices", RFC 2882, July 2000.
 [RFC3162]      Aboba, B., Zorn, G. and D. Mitton, "RADIUS and IPv6",
                RFC 3162, August 2001.
 [DynAuth]      Chiba, M., Dommety, G., Eklund, M., Mitton, D. and B.
                Aboba, "Dynamic Authorization Extensions to Remote
                Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)", RFC
                3576, July 2003.

4. Security Considerations

 The security considerations detailed in [RFC2434] are generally
 applicable to this document.  Security considerations relating to the
 RADIUS protocol are discussed in [RFC2607], [RFC2865], [RFC3162],
 [DynAuth], and [RFC2869bis].

Aboba Standards Track [Page 4] RFC 3575 IANA Considerations for RADIUS July 2003

Appendix A - RADIUS Packet Types

 A list of RADIUS Packet Type Codes is given below.  This document
 instructs IANA to list them in the registry of Packet Type Codes.
 Note that Type Codes 40-45, defined in [DynAuth], are being formally
 allocated here.  Codes 40-45 were listed in [RFC2882] and have been
 implemented and used.  Given their current widespread usage, these
 assignments are not reclaimable in practice.
 #        Message                      Reference
 ----     -------------------------    ---------
 1        Access-Request               [RFC2865]
 2        Access-Accept                [RFC2865]
 3        Access-Reject                [RFC2865]
 4        Accounting-Request           [RFC2865]
 5        Accounting-Response          [RFC2865]
 6        Accounting-Status            [RFC2882]
          (now Interim Accounting)
 7        Password-Request             [RFC2882]
 8        Password-Ack                 [RFC2882]
 9        Password-Reject              [RFC2882]
 10       Accounting-Message           [RFC2882]
 11       Access-Challenge             [RFC2865]
 12       Status-Server (experimental) [RFC2865]
 13       Status-Client (experimental) [RFC2865]
 21       Resource-Free-Request        [RFC2882]
 22       Resource-Free-Response       [RFC2882]
 23       Resource-Query-Request       [RFC2882]
 24       Resource-Query-Response      [RFC2882]
 25       Alternate-Resource-
          Reclaim-Request              [RFC2882]
 26       NAS-Reboot-Request           [RFC2882]
 27       NAS-Reboot-Response          [RFC2882]
 28       Reserved
 29       Next-Passcode                [RFC2882]

Aboba Standards Track [Page 5] RFC 3575 IANA Considerations for RADIUS July 2003

 #        Message                      Reference
 ----     -------------------------    ---------
 30       New-Pin                      [RFC2882]
 31       Terminate-Session            [RFC2882]
 32       Password-Expired             [RFC2882]
 33       Event-Request                [RFC2882]
 34       Event-Response               [RFC2882]
 40       Disconnect-Request           [DynAuth]
 41       Disconnect-ACK               [DynAuth]
 42       Disconnect-NAK               [DynAuth]
 43       CoA-Request                  [DynAuth]
 44       CoA-ACK                      [DynAuth]
 45       CoA-NAK                      [DynAuth]
 50       IP-Address-Allocate          [RFC2882]
 51       IP-Address-Release           [RFC2882]
 250-253  Experimental Use
 254      Reserved
 255      Reserved                     [RFC2865]

Aboba Standards Track [Page 6] RFC 3575 IANA Considerations for RADIUS July 2003

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 implementers 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


 Thanks to Ignacio Goyret of Lucent, Allison Mankin of Lucent Bell
 Labs, Thomas Narten of IBM, Glen Zorn and Harald Alvestrand of Cisco
 for discussions relating to this document.

Authors' Addresses

 Bernard Aboba
 Microsoft Corporation
 One Microsoft Way
 Redmond, WA 98052
 Phone: +1 425 706 6605
 Fax:   +1 425 936 7329

Aboba Standards Track [Page 7] RFC 3575 IANA Considerations for RADIUS July 2003

Full Copyright Statement

 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003).  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
 The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
 revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assignees.
 This document and the information contained herein is provided on an


 Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
 Internet Society.

Aboba Standards Track [Page 8]

/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/rfc/rfc3575.txt · Last modified: 2003/07/08 22:55 by

Donate Powered by PHP Valid HTML5 Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki