Le 19-01-21 à 17 h 28, Alan DeKok a écrit :
On Jan 21, 2019, at 4:05 PM, Fabrice Durand <fdurand@inverse.ca> wrote:
i am trying to debug an issue with FreerRADIUS and a cisco switch where the attribute Tunnel-Private-Group-ID (81) is understood by the cisco switch as the attribute Ascend-Auth-Type.
Jan 18 07:37:00: RADIUS: Tunnel-Type [64] 6 00:VLAN [13] Jan 18 07:37:00: RADIUS: Ascend-Auth-Type [81] 8 1868981865 No... that's *not* a VSA. There's no Vendor-ID. It looks to be a cisco weird attribute (https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/net_mgmt/prime/access_registrar/6-0-1/...)
Jan 18 07:37:00: RADIUS: Tunnel-Medium-Type [65] 6 00:ALL_802 [6] Jan 18 07:37:00: RADIUS(00000000): Received from id 1645/16 Jan 18 07:37:00: RADIUS: unsupported value 1868981865 in attribute 81 Jan 18 07:37:00: RADIUS/DECODE: Ascend auth type; FAIL Jan 18 07:37:00: RADIUS/DECODE: decoder; FAIL Jan 18 07:37:00: RADIUS/DECODE: attribute Ascend-Auth-Type; FAIL
The issue is related to a configuration parameter (non-standard) defined in the radius configuration section (switch side).
So if i remove this configuration parameter it works. Call Cisco and tell them that their switch is buggy. The kind of bug which of the kind: "How the HECK did you do something that ridiculous"?
Ask them to provide a fix. RFC 2868 is from 2000. i.e. it's 20 years old. There's just no excuse for this kind of incompatibility. Completely agree.
Is it a bug in FreeRADIUS or is it something normal ? The RFCs make it clear that (a) tagged integers are special, there's no real "tag" field and (b) tags of 0 are special.
Thanks for the reply, i was unsure what the radius reply was supposed to be (tag versus no tag). Regards Fabrice
Alan DeKok.
- List info/subscribe/unsubscribe? See http://www.freeradius.org/list/users.html