Re: Questions on TCP port usage for RADIUS/TLS

[Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com>]

Stefan Winter wrote:
> So, there is a good reasoning on why three distinct ports would make
> sense. The only problem is: none of the existing implementations does it
> that way; so there is no running code yet. The question thus is:

  IIRC, the implementations are capable of listening on multiple ports
at the same time.  This allows then to listen on 3 ports, even if they
*also* accept all packet codes on each of those ports.

> ** As an implementor, do you think changing the spec towards three
> separate ports is reasonable, and do you think you would adapt your
> implementation? **

  I prefer fewer ports.  Adapting the implementation is easier than
adapting the spec. :)

> ** If you had to choose between the aforementioned decision points a) or
> b) , which one would you prefer as an implementor? **

  I'd prefer to re-use TCP/1812, TCP/1813, and TCP/3699 for TLS.

  Alan DeKok.

--
to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/>