RADEXT Working Group                                            A. DeKok
Internet-Draft                                                 InkBridge
Intended status: Standards Track                            V. Cargatser
Expires: 28 November 2025                                          Cisco
                                                             27 May 2025

          Reverse Change of Authorization (CoA) in RADIUS/TLS
                    draft-ietf-radext-reverse-coa-06

Abstract

   This document defines a "reverse Change of Authorization (CoA)" path
   for RADIUS packets.  This specification allows a home server to send
   CoA packets in "reverse" down a RADIUS/TLS connection.  Without this
   capability, it is impossible for a home server to send CoA packets to
   a NAS which is behind a firewall or NAT gateway.  The reverse CoA
   functionality extends the available transport methods for CoA
   packets, but it does not change anything else about how CoA packets
   are handled.

About This Document

   This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.

   Status information for this document may be found at
   https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-radext-reverse-coa/.

   Discussion of this document takes place on the RADEXT Working Group
   mailing list (mailto:radext@ietf.org), which is archived at
   https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/radext/.  Subscribe at
   https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/radext/.

   Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at
   https://github.com//radext-wg/draft-ietf-radext-reverse-coa.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

DeKok & Cargatser       Expires 28 November 2025                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft                 Reverse CoA                      May 2025

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on 28 November 2025.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2025 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
   license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
   Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
   and restrictions with respect to this document.  Code Components
   extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
   described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
   provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Concepts  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   4.  Capability Configuration and Signalling . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   5.  Reverse Routing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     5.1.  Errors and Fail Over  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     5.2.  Retransmissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   6.  Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     6.1.  FreeRADIUS  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     6.2.  Cisco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     6.3.  Aruba . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   7.  Privacy Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   8.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   9.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   10. Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   11. Changelog . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   12. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     12.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     12.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12

DeKok & Cargatser       Expires 28 November 2025                [Page 2]
Internet-Draft                 Reverse CoA                      May 2025

1.  Introduction

   [RFC5176] defines the ability to change a users authorization, or
   disconnect the user via what are generally called "Change of
   Authorization" or "CoA" packets.  This term refers to either of the
   RADIUS packet types CoA-Request or Disconnect-Request.  The initial
   transport protocol for all RADIUS was the User Datagram Protocol
   (UDP).

   [RFC6614] updated previous specifications to allow packets to be sent
   over the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol.  Section 2.5 of
   that document explicitly allows all packets (including CoA) to be
   sent over a TLS connection:

   Due to the use of one single TCP port for all packet types, it is
   required that a RADIUS/TLS server signal which types of packets are
   supported on a server to a connecting peer.  See also Section 3.4 for
   a discussion of signaling.

   These specifications assume that a RADIUS client can directly contact
   a RADIUS server, which is the normal "forward" path for packets
   between a client and server.  However, it is not always possible for
   the RADIUS server to send CoA packets to the RADIUS client.  If a
   RADIUS server wishes to act as a CoA client, and send CoA packets to
   the NAS (CoA server), the "reverse" path can be blocked by a
   firewall, NAT gateway, etc.  That is, a RADIUS server has to be
   reachable by a NAS, but there is usually no requirement that the NAS
   is reachable from a public system.  To the contrary, there is usually
   a requirement that the NAS is not publicly accessible.

   This scenario is most evident in a roaming / federated environment
   such as Eduroam or OpenRoaming.  It is in general impossible for a
   home server to signal the NAS to disconnect a user.  There is no
   direct reverse path from the home server to the NAS, as the NAS is
   not publicly addressible.  Even if there was a public reverse path,
   it would generally be unknowable, as intermediate proxies can (and
   do) attribute rewriting to hide NAS identies.

   These limitations can result in business losses and security
   problems, such as the inability to disconnect an online user when
   their account has been terminated.

   As the reverse path is usally blocked, it means that it is in general
   possible only to send CoA packets to a NAS when the NAS and RADIUS
   server share the same private network (private IP space or IPsec).
   Even though [RFC8559] defines CoA proxying, that specification does
   not address the issue of NAS reachability.

DeKok & Cargatser       Expires 28 November 2025                [Page 3]
Internet-Draft                 Reverse CoA                      May 2025

   This specification solves that problem.  The solution is to simply
   allow CoA packets to go in "reverse" down an existing RADIUS/TLS
   connection.  That is, when a NAS connects to a RADIUS server it
   normally sends request packets (Access-Request, etc.) and expects to
   receive response packets (Access-Accept, etc.).  This specification
   extends RADIUS/TLS by permitting a RADIUS server to re-use an
   existing TLS connection to send CoA packets to the NAS, and
   permitting the NAS to send CoA response packets to the RADIUS server
   over that same connection.

   We note that while this document specifically mentions RADIUS/TLS, it
   should be possible to use the same mechanisms on RADIUS/DTLS
   [RFC7360].  However at the time of writing this specification, no
   implementations exist for "reverse CoA" over RADIUS/DTLS.  As such,
   when we refer to "TLS" here, or "RADIUS/TLS", we implicitly include
   RADIUS/DTLS in that description.

   This mechanism does not depend on the underlying transport protocol,
   or interact with it.  It is therefore compatible not only with
   [RFC6614], and [RFC7360], but also with
   [I-D.ietf-radext-radiusdtls-bis] which will replace those earlier
   standards.

   This mechanism is not needed for RADIUS/UDP, as UDP is
   connectionless.  [RFC8559] suffices for CoA when using RADIUS/UDP.
   For RADIUS/TCP, while this same mechanism could theoretically be used
   there, RADIUS/TCP is being deprecated by
   [I-D.ietf-radext-deprecating-radius].  Therefore for practial
   purposes, "reverse CoA" means RADIUS/TLS and RADIUS/DTLS.

   There are additional considerations for proxies.  While [RFC8559]
   describes CoA proxying, there are still issues which need to be
   addressed for the "reverse CoA" use-case.  This specification
   describes how those systems can implement "reverse CoA" proxying,
   including processing packets through both an intermediate proxy
   network, and at the visited network.

2.  Terminology

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
   BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

   *  CoA

DeKok & Cargatser       Expires 28 November 2025                [Page 4]
Internet-Draft                 Reverse CoA                      May 2025

      Change of Authorization packets.  For brevity, when this document
      refers to "CoA" packets, it means either or both of CoA-Request
      and Disconnect-Request packets.

   *  ACK

      Change of Authorization "positive acknowlegement" packets.  For
      brevity, when this document refers to "ACK" packets, it means
      either or both of CoA-ACK and Disconnect-ACK packets.

   *  NAK

      Change of Authorization "negative acknowlegement" packets.  For
      brevity, when this document refers to "NAK" packets, it means
      either or both of CoA-NAK and Disconnect-NAK packets.

   *  RADIUS/TLS

      RADIUS over the Transport Layer Security protocol [RFC6614]

   *  RADIUS/DTLS

      RADIUS over the Datagram Transport Layer Security protocol
      [RFC7360]

   *  TLS

      Either RADIUS/TLS or RADIUS/DTLS.

   *  reverse CoA

      CoA, ACK, or NAK packets sent over a RADIUS/TLS or RADIUS/DTLS
      connection which was made from a RADIUS client to a RADIUS server.

3.  Concepts

   The reverse CoA functionality is based on two additions to RADIUS.
   The first addition is a configuration and signalling, to indicate
   that a RADIUS client is capable of accepting reverse CoA packets.
   The second addition is an extension to the "reverse" routing table
   for CoA packets which was first described in Section 2.1 of
   [RFC8559].

4.  Capability Configuration and Signalling

   In order for a RADIUS server to send reverse CoA packets to a client,
   it must first know that the client is capable of accepting these
   packets.

DeKok & Cargatser       Expires 28 November 2025                [Page 5]
Internet-Draft                 Reverse CoA                      May 2025

   Clients and servers implementing reverse CoA MUST have a
   configuration flag which indicates that the other party supports the
   reverse CoA functionality.  That is, the client has a per-server flag
   enabling (or not) reverse CoA functionality.  The server has a
   similar per-client flag.

   The flag can be used where the parties are known to each other.  The
   flag can also be used in conjunction with dynamic discovery
   ([RFC7585]), so long as the server associates the flag with the
   client identity and not with any particular IP address.  That is, the
   flag can be associated with any method of identifying a particular
   client such as TLS PSK identity, information in a client certificate,
   etc.

   The configuration flag allows administators to statically enable this
   functionality, based on out-of-band discussions with other
   administators.  This process is best used in an environment where all
   RADIUS proxies are known (or required) to have a particular set of
   functionality, as with a roaming consortium.

   This specification does not define a way for clients and servers to
   negotiate this functionality on a per-connection basis.  The RADIUS
   protocol has little, if any, provisions for capability negotiations,
   and this specification is not the place to add that functionality.

   Without notification, however, it is possible for clients and servers
   to have mismatched configurations.  Where a client is configured to
   accept reverse CoA packets and the next hop server is not configured
   to send them, no packets will be sent.  Where a client is configured
   to not accept reverse CoA packets and the next hop server is
   configured to send them, the client will silently discard these
   packets as per [RFC2865], Section 3.  In both of those situations,
   reverse CoA packets will not flow, but there will be no other issues
   with this misconfiguration.

5.  Reverse Routing

   In normal RADIUS proxying. the forward routing table uses the User-
   Name attribute (via the Network Access Identifiers (NAIs) [RFC7542])
   to map realms to next hop servers.  For reverse CoA, [RFC8559],
   Section 2.1 uses the Operator-Name attribute to map operator
   identifiers to next hop servers.

DeKok & Cargatser       Expires 28 November 2025                [Page 6]
Internet-Draft                 Reverse CoA                      May 2025

   This specification extends the [RFC8559], Section 2.1 reverse routing
   table to allow the next hop to be found via an open TLS connection,
   rather than a destination hostname or IP address.  A server which
   needs to send reverse CoA packets to clients maintains a list of open
   TLS connections from clients.  It also associates both a reverse CoA
   capability, and one or more operator identifiers with each
   connection.

   A server MUST support associating one operator identifier with
   multiple connections.  A server MUST support associating multiple
   operator identifiers with one connection.  That is, the "operator
   identifier to connection" mapping is not one-to-one, or 1:N, or M:1,
   it is N:M or many-to-many.

   This process occurs for all RADIUS proxies, except for the final one
   which sends the CoA packet to the client.  That proxy forwards the
   reverse CoA packet to the client based on the Operator-NAS-Identifier
   attribute ([RFC8559], Section 3.4) and/or other NAS identification
   attributes such as NAS-Identifier, NAS-IP-Address, or NAS-
   IPv6-Address.  The result is that there is a complete forwarding path
   from the home network back to the visited network.

5.1.  Errors and Fail Over

   When the server receives a reverse CoA packet, but cannot forward it,
   the server MUST return a NAK packet that contains an Error-Cause
   Attribute having value 502 ("Request Not Routable").

   As with normal proxying, a particular packet can sometimes have the
   choice more than one connection which can be used to reach a
   destination.  In that case, issues of load-balancing, fail-over, etc.
   are implementation-defined, and are not discussed here.  The server
   simply chooses one connection, and sends the reverse CoA packet down
   that connection.

   A server can also use RADIUS/UDP to send the reverse CoA packet;
   there is no requirement that all CoA packets use a "reversed" TLS
   connection.

   After sending a packet, the server then waits for a reply, doing
   retransmission if necessary.  For all issues other than the
   connection being used, reverse CoA packets are handled as defined in
   [RFC5176] and in [RFC8559].  This specification permits reverse CoA
   packets to be sent on what would otherwise be a client to server TLS
   connection.  It does not change the basic functionality of proxying
   CoA packets.

DeKok & Cargatser       Expires 28 November 2025                [Page 7]
Internet-Draft                 Reverse CoA                      May 2025

5.2.  Retransmissions

   Retransmissions of reverse CoA packets are handled identically to
   normal CoA packets.  That is, the reverse CoA functionality extends
   the available transport methods for CoA packets, it does not change
   anything else about how CoA packets are handled.

6.  Implementation Status

   RFC Editor: This section may be removed before publication.

   This section records the status of known implementations of the
   protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this
   Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in [RFC7942].
   The description of implementations in this section is intended to
   assist the IETF in its decision processes in progressing drafts to
   RFCs.  Please note that the listing of any individual implementation
   here does not imply endorsement by the IETF.  Furthermore, no effort
   has been spent to verify the information presented here that was
   supplied by IETF contributors.  This is not intended as, and must not
   be construed to be, a catalog of available implementations or their
   features.  Readers are advised to note that other implementations may
   exist.

   According to [RFC7942], "this will allow reviewers and working groups
   to assign due consideration to documents that have the benefit of
   running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable experimentation
   and feedback that have made the implemented protocols more mature.
   It is up to the individual working groups to use this information as
   they see fit".

6.1.  FreeRADIUS

   The FreeRADIUS project has implemented this specification in the
   v3.2.x (https://github.com/FreeRADIUS/freeradius-server/blob/v3.2.x)
   branch which is available on GitHub.  The feature is not enabled by
   default, and requires a build flag WITH_COA_TUNNEL to be defined
   before the new functionality is included with the software.

   Maturity: The implementation is at a "beta" level, but has been
   tested to work with other implementations.

   Coverage: All of this specification is supported.

   Version Compatibility: Earlier versions of this specification are not
   supported, but the current version is supported.

   Licensing: GPLv2

DeKok & Cargatser       Expires 28 November 2025                [Page 8]
Internet-Draft                 Reverse CoA                      May 2025

   Contact Information: http://freeradius.org/

   Date: This information was updated May 2025.

6.2.  Cisco

   Cisco supports this specification as of Cisco IOS XE Bengaluru 17.6.1
   via Vendor-Specific attributes.  reference
   (https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/switches/lan/catalyst9300/
   software/release/17-6/configuration_guide/sec/b_176_sec_9300_cg/
   configuring_radsec.pdf)

   Maturity: The implementation is available in production.

   Coverage: All of this specification is supported.

   Version Compatibility: Earlier versions of this specification are not
   supported, but the current version is supported.

   Licensing: Proprietary

   Contact Information: http://cisco.com/

   Date: This information was updated October 2022.

6.3.  Aruba

   Aruba documentation states that "Instant supports dynamic CoA (RFC
   3576) over RadSec and the RADIUS server uses an existing TLS
   connection opened by the Instant AP to send the request." reference
   (https://www.arubanetworks.com/techdocs/Instant_83_WebHelp/Content/
   Instant_UG/Authentication/ConfiguringRadSec.htm)

   Maturity: The implementation is available in production.

   Coverage: All of this specification is supported.

   Version Compatibility: Earlier versions of this specification are not
   supported, but the current version is supported.

   Licensing: Proprietary

   Contact Information: http://hp.com/

   Date: This information was updated October 2022.

DeKok & Cargatser       Expires 28 November 2025                [Page 9]
Internet-Draft                 Reverse CoA                      May 2025

7.  Privacy Considerations

   This document does not change or add any privacy considerations over
   previous RADIUS specifications.

8.  Security Considerations

   This document increases network security by removing the requirement
   for non-standard "reverse" paths for CoA-Request and Disconnect-
   Request packets.

9.  IANA Considerations

   This document requests no action from IANA.

10.  Acknowledgements

   Thanks to Heikki Vatiainen for testing a preliminary implementation
   in Radiator, and for verifying interoperability with NAS equipment.

11.  Changelog

   RFC Editor: This section may be removed before publication.

   *  00 - taken from draft-dekok-radext-reverse-coa-01

   *  01 - Bumped to avoid expiry

   *  02 - Bumped to avoid expiry

   *  03 - remove dynamic negotiation and cleanups

   *  04 - shephards review

   *  05 - tweak refs

12.  References

12.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119>.

DeKok & Cargatser       Expires 28 November 2025               [Page 10]
Internet-Draft                 Reverse CoA                      May 2025

   [RFC2865]  Rigney, C., Willens, S., Rubens, A., and W. Simpson,
              "Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)",
              RFC 2865, DOI 10.17487/RFC2865, June 2000,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2865>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8174>.

   [RFC8559]  DeKok, A. and J. Korhonen, "Dynamic Authorization Proxying
              in the Remote Authentication Dial-In User Service (RADIUS)
              Protocol", RFC 8559, DOI 10.17487/RFC8559, April 2019,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8559>.

12.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-radext-deprecating-radius]
              DeKok, A., "Deprecating Insecure Practices in RADIUS",
              Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-radext-
              deprecating-radius-06, 25 May 2025,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-radext-
              deprecating-radius-06>.

   [I-D.ietf-radext-radiusdtls-bis]
              Rieckers, J. and S. Winter, "(Datagram) Transport Layer
              Security ((D)TLS) Encryption for RADIUS", Work in
              Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-radext-radiusdtls-
              bis-06, 27 May 2025,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-radext-
              radiusdtls-bis-06>.

   [RFC5176]  Chiba, M., Dommety, G., Eklund, M., Mitton, D., and B.
              Aboba, "Dynamic Authorization Extensions to Remote
              Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)", RFC 5176,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5176, January 2008,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5176>.

   [RFC6614]  Winter, S., McCauley, M., Venaas, S., and K. Wierenga,
              "Transport Layer Security (TLS) Encryption for RADIUS",
              RFC 6614, DOI 10.17487/RFC6614, May 2012,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6614>.

   [RFC7360]  DeKok, A., "Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) as a
              Transport Layer for RADIUS", RFC 7360,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7360, September 2014,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7360>.

DeKok & Cargatser       Expires 28 November 2025               [Page 11]
Internet-Draft                 Reverse CoA                      May 2025

   [RFC7542]  DeKok, A., "The Network Access Identifier", RFC 7542,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7542, May 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7542>.

   [RFC7585]  Winter, S. and M. McCauley, "Dynamic Peer Discovery for
              RADIUS/TLS and RADIUS/DTLS Based on the Network Access
              Identifier (NAI)", RFC 7585, DOI 10.17487/RFC7585, October
              2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7585>.

   [RFC7942]  Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running
              Code: The Implementation Status Section", BCP 205,
              RFC 7942, DOI 10.17487/RFC7942, July 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942>.

Authors' Addresses

   Alan DeKok
   InkBridge
   Email: alan.dekok@inkbridge.io

   Vadim Cargatser
   Cisco
   Email: vcargats@cisco.com

DeKok & Cargatser       Expires 28 November 2025               [Page 12]