[Search] [txt|pdf|bibtex] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05                                             
INTERNET DRAFT                                            Pat R. Calhoun
Category: Informational                           Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Title: draft-calhoun-diameter-impl-guide-01.txt          Allan C. Rubens
Date: March 2000                                       Tut Systems, Inc.
                                                           Haseeb Akhtar
                                                         Nortel Networks
                                                          William Bulley
                                                     Merit Network, Inc.
                                                               Jeff Haag
                                                           Cisco Systems



                   DIAMETER Implementation Guidelines



Status of this Memo

   This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
   all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.  Internet-Drafts are working
   documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas,
   and its working groups.  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.

   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."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at:

      http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at:

      http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

   This document is an individual contribution for consideration by the
   AAA Working Group of the Internet Engineering Task Force.  Comments
   should be submitted to the diameter@ipass.com mailing list.

   Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

   Copyright   (C) The Internet Society 1999.  All Rights Reserved.


Abstract



Calhoun et al.           expires September 2000                 [Page 1]


INTERNET DRAFT                                                March 2000


   The DIAMETER protocol is used for Authentication, Authorization and
   Accounting (AAA) for Mobile-IP and NASREQ. This document contains
   implementation guidelines that may be useful to DIAMETER protocol
   developers.


Table of Contents

      1.0  Introduction
      2.0  Base Protocol
            2.1  Backward Compatibility with RADIUS
            2.2  Device-Reboot-Ind Message Flow
            2.3  Message-Reject-Ind Message Flow
            2.4  Peer Fail-Over and Load Balancing
            2.5  Multiple IP Addresses
            2.6  Maintaining Per-Request State
      3.0  NASREQ Extension
            3.1  RADIUS/DIAMETER Protocol Interactions
                  3.1.1  RADIUS request forwarded as DIAMETER request
                  3.1.2  DIAMETER request forwarded as RADIUS request
            3.2  EAP Retransmission and Timer
            3.3  Example of an EAP OTP Authentication
                  3.3.1  Successful Authentication
                  3.3.2  NAS Initiated EAP Authentication
                  3.3.3  Server-Initiated Authentication
                  3.3.4  Example of failed EAP Authentication
                  3.3.5  Example of DIAMETER Server not supporting EAP
                  3.3.6  Example of DIAMETER Proxy not supporting EAP
                  3.3.7  Example of PPP Client not supporting EAP
      4.0  References
      5.0  Acknowledgements
      5.0  Authors' Addresses
      6.0  Full Copyright Statement


















Calhoun et al.           expires September 2000                 [Page 2]


INTERNET DRAFT                                                March 2000


1.0  Introduction

   The DIAMETER protocol is used for Authentication, Authorization and
   Accounting (AAA) for Mobile-IP and NASREQ. This document contains
   implementation guidelines that may be useful to DIAMETER protocol
   developers.

   This specification contains implementation guidelines for both the
   DIAMETER base protocol [2] and the NASREQ extension [3].


2.0 Base Protocol

   This section contains implementation guidelines for the DIAMETER Base
   protocol [2].


2.1  Backward Compatibility with RADIUS

   The DIAMETER protocol was designed with RADIUS [1] compatibility in
   mind.  A DIAMETER node MAY listen for incoming RADIUS and DIAMETER
   packets on the same UDP port. The first octet in the message would
   indicate whether the message is of type RADIUS or DIAMETER.

   The RADIUS protocol defines a one octet attribute space, and the
   DIAMETER protocol reserves the first 255 attribute identifiers to be
   the same as those defined in RADIUS. This allows DIAMETER servers to
   easily perform protocol conversion, since an additional dictionary
   lookup would not be necessary in order to map a RADIUS attribute to a
   DIAMETER AVP.

   By re-using the RADIUS attribute space, a DIAMETER server could
   easily read a typical RADIUS user profile without any additional
   conversions.  This reduces the need to create duplicate user profiles
   for both protocols, and also does not require any database conversion
   while reading the profiles.


2.2  Device-Reboot-Ind Message Flow

   The following figure depicts a sample flow of Device-Reboot-Ind
   between three DIAMETER peers, one being a proxy or broker server. In
   this example DIA1 initiates the bootstrap sequence with DIA2, and
   later DIA3 initiates the bootstrap sequence with DIA2. After some
   time DIA1 needs to reboot and informs DIA2. The details of each
   message is provided below.





Calhoun et al.           expires September 2000                 [Page 3]


INTERNET DRAFT                                                March 2000


           +-------+            +-------+           +-------+
           | DIA1  |            | PROXY |           | DIA3  |
           |       |            | DIA2  |           |       |
           +-------+            +-------+           +-------+
               |                    |                   |
               |DRI (ns=0, nr=0)    |                   |
               |  Rebooted          |                   |
               |  version 1,        |                   |
               |  extensions 1, 4   |                   |
          (a)  |------------------->|                   |
               |DRI (ns=0, nr=1)    |                   |
               |  Rebooted          |                   |
               |  version 1,        |                   |
               |  extension 1       |                   |
          (b)  |<-------------------|                   |
               |ZLB (ns=0, nr=1)    |                   |
          (c)  |------------------->|                   |
               |         .          |DRI (ns=0, nr=0)   |
               |         .          |  Rebooted         |
               |                    |  version 1,       |
               |                    |  extensions 1, 2  |
          (d)  |                    |<------------------|
               |                    |DRI (ns=0, nr=1)   |
               |                    |  Rebooted         |
               |                    |  version 1,       |
               |                    |  extension 1      |
          (e)  |                    |------------------>|
               |                    |ZLB (ns=0, nr=1)   |
          (f)  |                    |<------------------|
               |DRI (ns=x, nr=y)    |         .         |
               |  Upcoming Reboot   |         .         |
          (g)  |------------------->|                   |
               |         .          |                   |
               |         .          |                   |
               |DRI (ns=0, nr=0)    |                   |
               |  Rebooted          |                   |
               |  version 1,        |                   |
               |  extensions 1, 4   |                   |
          (h)  |------------------->|                   |
               |                    |                   |
         Figure 1: Sample DRI Message Flow in a Proxy Environment

      (a) DIA1 sends a DRI message to DIA2 indicating that its version
          is one (1) and that its supported extensions are 1 (Roamops)
          and 4 (Mobile-IP).

      (b) DIA2 sends a DRI message to DIA1 indicating that its version
          is one (1) and that its supported extension is 1 (Roamops).



Calhoun et al.           expires September 2000                 [Page 4]


INTERNET DRAFT                                                March 2000


          This message also includes a piggy-backed acknowledgement of
          (a).

      (c) DIA1 sends an acknowledgement of (b)

      (d) DIA3 sends a DRI message to DIA2 indicating that its version
          is one (1) and that its supported extensions are 1 (Roamops)
          and 2 (Secure Proxy).

      (e) DIA2 sends a DRI message to DIA3 indicating that its version
          is one (1) and that its supported extension is 1 (Roamops).
          This message also includes a piggy-backed acknowledgement of
          (d).

      (f) DIA3 sends an acknowledgement of (e)

      (g) after some time DIA1 sends an indication to DIA2 that it is
          about to reboot. All messages destined to the domain for which
          DIA1 is responsible for should be redirected to an alternate
          DIAMETER Server.

      (h) Once the reboot is complete, DIA sends the DRI, which causes
          steps (a) through (c) to be repeated.


2.3  Message-Reject-Ind Message Flow

   The following figure show sample flows of MRI command between two
   DIAMETER peers. In this example DIA1 and DIA2 servers generates error
   messages. The details of the messages are provided below.





















Calhoun et al.           expires September 2000                 [Page 5]


INTERNET DRAFT                                                March 2000


       +-------+                             +-------+
       | DIA1  |                             | DIA2  |
       +-------+                             +-------+
           |                                     |
           |Unknown command                      |
      (a)  |------------------------------------>|
           |MRI, err=DIAMETER_COMMAND_UNSUPPORTED|
      (b)  |<------------------------------------|
           |                 .                   |
           |                 .                   |
           |Unknown AVP                          |
      (c)  |<------------------------------------|
           |MRI, err=DIAMETER_AVP_UNSUPPORTED    |
      (d)  |------------------------------------>|
           |                 .                   |
           |                 .                   |
           |Bad value in a valid AVP             |
      (e)  |------------------------------------>|
           |MRI, err=DIAMETER_INVALID_AVP_VALUE  |
      (f)  |<------------------------------------|
                     Figure 3: Sample MRI Message Flow

      (a) DIA2 receives an unknown command from DIA1.

      (b) DIA2 recognizes that it received an unknown command and hence
          sends an MRI with the Result-Code AVP set to
          DIAMETER_COMMAND_UNSUPPORTED and the Command-Code AVP
          encapsulated within the Failed-AVP AVP.

      (c) DIA1 receives an unknown AVP in a message sent by DIA2.

      (d) DIA1 recognizes that it received an unknown AVP and returns an
          MRI with the Result-Code AVP set to DIAMETER_AVP_UNSUPPORTED
          and the offending AVP encapsulated within a Failed-AVP AVP.

      (e) DIA2 receives a bad parameter within a otherwise valid AVP
          from DIA1.

      (f) As soon as it discovers that it has received a bad parameter,
          it returns an MRI message to DIA1 with the Result-Code AVP set
          to DIAMETER_INVALID_AVP_VALUE and the offending AVP
          encapsulated within a Failed-AVP AVP.


2.4  Peer Fail-Over and Load Balancing

   Although not a function of the DIAMETER protocol, in some networks it
   is desirable to ensure resilient service by providing alternate



Calhoun et al.           expires September 2000                 [Page 6]


INTERNET DRAFT                                                March 2000


   peers, should communication with a peer fail. Figure 4 provides an
   example of such a network, where the client communicates with one of
   two servers providing proxying services. The proxy servers, in turn,
   communicate with one of two servers in the home domain.

                                          +--------+
                                          |  DIAM  |
                                          | Primary|
                       +--------+         |  Home  |
                       |  DIAM  +---------+ Server +----+
                       | Primary|         +--------+    |
     +--------+        | Proxy  |         +--------+    |
     |        +--------+ Server +---------+  DIAM  |    |
     |  DIAM  |        +--------+         |Alternat|    |
     | Client |        +--------+         |  Home  |    |
     |        +--------+  DIAM  +---------+ Server |    |
     +--------+        |Alternat|         +--------+    |
                       | Proxy  |                       |
                       | Server +-----------------------+
                       +--------+
                   Figure 4: Redundant DIAMETER Servers

   Each node in the network MUST know a priori about its communicating
   peers, and each peer MAY have a relative priority, forcing all
   traffic to be sent through a preferred server, if it is available.
   When a node detects that a communicating peer is no longer available,
   it MUST attempt to redirect all traffic (including the packets in the
   retransmission queue destined for the former peer) to the new peer.
   It is possible that an alternate path not exist, such would be the
   case if the DIAMETER Client was no longer reachable. In this case,
   the DIAMETER proxy servers SHOULD drop all responses directed to the
   client, and MUST respond to all requests directed to the client with
   an appropriate Result Code.

   An implementation MAY also make use of the multiple peer arrangement
   described above to balance the load between a set of peers. A clever
   implementation MAY also redirect traffic to an alternate peer when it
   detects that its primary communicating peer's window is full.


2.5  Multiple IP Addresses

   SCTP supports multiple IP addresses per DIAMETER host, and the Host-
   Name AVP MAY resolve to more than one address. The alternate
   addresses supplied by the host name resolution SHOULD be used to
   determine the complete set of addresses indicated by the Host-Name
   AVP.




Calhoun et al.           expires September 2000                 [Page 7]


INTERNET DRAFT                                                March 2000


2.6  Maintaining Per-Request State

   Some applications of DIAMETER servers require that local state
   information be maintained for each request, to assist in the
   processing of the corresponding response. It is important to note
   that a DIAMETER server that maintains per-request state information
   introduces a single point of failure, reducing the reliability of the
   service. There are two methods that MAY be implemented that allow
   per-request state information to be maintained:

      1. DIA2 MAY maintain a state control block to allow it to match a
         response with a corresponding request. The state control block
         MAY include AVPs that need to be added to the response, or any
         additional policy decisions that will need to be made when the
         response is received.

      2. DIA2 MAY add a Proxy-State AVP (see section 6.2.1) to a
         request, which may contain any state information that will be
         needed when the corresponding response is received. When a
         DIAMETER node adds its own Proxy-State AVP to a message that
         already includes such an AVP, it MUST ensure that the original
         AVP is present in the corresponding response. One suggested
         method is to "encapsulate" the original Proxy-State AVP in the
         new Proxy-State AVP.


3.0  NASREQ Extension

   This section contains implementation guidelines for the NASREQ
   DIAMETER Extension [3].


3.1  RADIUS/DIAMETER Protocol Interactions

   This section describes some basic guidelines that may be used by
   servers that act as protocol gateways. Note that this document does
   not restrict implementations from creating other methods, as long as
   the bridging function doesn't break the RADIUS nor the DIAMETER
   protocol.

   There are essentially two different situations that must be handled;
   one where a RADIUS request is received that must be forwarded as a
   DIAMETER request, and the inverse. Note that this section uses two
   different terms; AVP and attribute. The former is used to signify a
   DIAMETER AVP, while the latter is used to signify a RADIUS attribute.


3.1.1  RADIUS request forwarded as DIAMETER request



Calhoun et al.           expires September 2000                 [Page 8]


INTERNET DRAFT                                                March 2000


   When a server receives a RADIUS Access-Request that is to be
   forwarded to a DIAMETER entity, the following steps are an example of
   the steps that may be followed:

      - The NAS-IP-Address and/or NAS-Identifier AVPs are included in
        the DIAMETER request. These AVPs identify the NAS providing the
        service to the user.
      - The Host-Name AVP is added with the local server's identity.
        This will ensure that the corresponding response will be
        returned to the correct gateway server.
      - The Gateway Server must maintain state information relevant to
        the RADIUS request, such as the Identifier field in the RADIUS
        header, any existing RADIUS Proxy-State attribute as well as the
        source IP address and port number of the UDP packet. These may
        be maintained locally in a state table, or may be saved in a
        Proxy-State AVP.
      - If the Acct-Session-Id attribute was found in the request, the
        contents are inserted in the Acct-Session-Id AVP.
      - If the RADIUS request contained a Class or State attribute, the
        contents of the attribute contain the DIAMETER Session-Id. If no
        such attributes are present, and the RADIUS command is an
        Access-Request, a new Session-Id is created. The Session-Id is
        included in the Session-Id AVP.

   When the corresponding DIAMETER response is received by the gateway
   server, which is guaranteed due to the contents of the Host-Name AVP,
   the following steps may be followed:

      - If the DIAMETER Command-Code is set to AA-Challenge, the
        DIAMETER Session Idenfitier is saved in the RADIUS State
        attribute. If the Command-Code is set to AA-Answer, the DIAMETER
        Session Identifier is saved in the RADIUS Class attribute.
      - If a Proxy-State attribute was present in the RADIUS request,
        the same attribute is added in the response. This information
        may be found in the Proxy-State AVP, or in a local state table.
      - If state information regarding the RADIUS request was saved in a
        Proxy-State AVP, the RADIUS Identifier and UDP IP Address and
        port number are extracted and used in issuing the RADIUS reply.


3.1.2  DIAMETER request forwarded as RADIUS request

   When a server receives a DIAMETER request that is to be forwarded to
   a RADIUS entity, the following steps are an example of the steps that
   may be followed:

      - The Host-Name AVP's value is inserted in the NAS-Identifier
        attribute.  Since the contents of the Host-Name AVP is in an NAI



Calhoun et al.           expires September 2000                 [Page 9]


INTERNET DRAFT                                                March 2000


        [8] format, and the NAS-Idenfitier follows the Fully Qualified
        Domain Name (FQDN) syntax rules, the NAI's domain delimited '@'
        must be replaced by a dot '.'.
      - The Host-Name and Session Identifier must be retained in order
        to ensure that the information is present in the corresponding
        response. The gateway server may keep this information in a
        local state table, or may add the information in a RADIUS
        Proxy-State attribute.

   When the corresponding response is received by the gateway server,
   which is guaranteed in the RADIUS protocol, the following steps may
   be followed:

      - If a Proxy-State AVP is present, extract the Host-Name and
        Session Identifier information, otherwise find the information
        in a local state table.
      - The Host-Name information is added to the Destination-NAI AVP.
      - The Session-Id information is added to the Session-Id AVP.
      - If the RADIUS Class or State attributes are present, these
        attributes must be present in the DIAMETER response.


3.2  EAP Retransmission and Timers

   As noted in [4], the EAP authenticator (NAS) is responsible for
   retransmission of packets between the authenticating peer (PPP
   client) and the NAS. Thus if an EAP packet is lost in transit between
   the authenticating peer and the NAS (or vice versa), the NAS will
   retransmit.  Since DIAMETER operates over SCTP [7], which provides
   reliability, all EAP packets sent to a DIAMETER peer will be
   retransmitted automatically.

   Note that it may be necessary to adjust authentication timeouts in
   certain cases. For example, when a token card is used additional time
   may be required to allow the user to find the card and enter the
   token. Since the NAS will typically not have knowledge of the
   required parameters, these need to be provided by the DIAMETER
   server. This can be accomplished by inclusion of the Idle-Timeout in
   the DIAMETER-EAP-Answer message.


3.3  Example of an EAP OTP Authentication

   This section provides sample messages exchanges between an
   Authenticating Peer, which is typically a dial-up PPP client, a NAS
   and a DIAMETER server.  The protocol used between the Dial-up PPP
   client and the NAS is EAP over PPP as defined in [4]. The protocol
   between the NAS and the DIAMETER Server is EAP encapsulated within



Calhoun et al.           expires September 2000                [Page 10]


INTERNET DRAFT                                                March 2000


   DIAMETER, as described in this specification.

   For all PPP packets, the messages are formatted as:
         [LCP Packet Type]
         [EAP Packet Type]/[EAP Payload]

   For all DIAMETER packets, the messages are formatted as:
         [DIAMETER Command Code]/[EAP Packet Type]/[EAP Payload]

   In the example provided below, the PPP client attempts to
   authenticate using a One-Time-Password [5] encapsulated within EAP
   [4].


3.3.1  Successful Authentication

   The example below shows the conversation between the authenticating
   peer, NAS, and server, for the case of a One Time Password (OTP)
   authentication. OTP is used only for illustrative purposes; other
   authentication protocols could also have been used, although they
   would show somewhat different behavior.






























Calhoun et al.           expires September 2000                [Page 11]


INTERNET DRAFT                                                March 2000


      Authenticating Peer   NAS                      DIAMETER Server
      -------------------   ---                      ---------------

                            <- PPP LCP Request-EAP
                            auth
      PPP LCP ACK-EAP
      auth ->
                            DIAMETER-
                            EAP-Request/
                            EAP-Payload/Start ->
                                                     <- DIAMETER-
                                                     EAP-Answer/
                                                     EAP-
  Payload/Identity
                            <- PPP EAP-Request/
                            Identity
      PPP EAP-Response/
      Identity (MyID) ->
                            DIAMETER-
                            EAP-Request/
                            EAP-Payload/
                            EAP-Response/
                            (MyID) ->
                                                     <- DIAMETER-
                                                     EAP-Answer/
                                                     EAP-Payload/EAP-
  Request
                                                     OTP/OTP Challenge
                            <- PPP EAP-Request/
                            OTP/OTP Challenge
      PPP EAP-Response/
      OTP, OTPpw ->
                            DIAMETER-
                            EAP-Request/
                            EAP-Payload/
                            EAP-Response/
                            OTP, OTPpw ->
                                                     <- DIAMETER-
                                                     EAP-Answer/
                                                     EAP-Payload/EAP-
  Success
                                                     (other AVPs)
                            <- PPP EAP-Success
      PPP Authentication
      Phase complete,
      NCP Phase starts





Calhoun et al.           expires September 2000                [Page 12]


INTERNET DRAFT                                                March 2000


3.3.2:  NAS Initiated EAP Authentication

   In the case where the NAS sends the authenticating peer an EAP-
   Request/Identity packet without first sending an EAP-Start packet to
   the DIAMETER server, the conversation would appear as follows:

      Authenticating Peer   NAS                      DIAMETER Server
      -------------------   ---                      ---------------


                            <- PPP LCP Request-EAP
                            auth
      PPP LCP ACK-EAP
      auth ->
                            <- PPP EAP-Request/
                            Identity
      PPP EAP-Response/
      Identity (MyID) ->
                            DIAMETER-
                            EAP-Request/
                            EAP-Payload/
                            EAP-Response/
                            (MyID) ->
                                                     <- DIAMETER-
                                                     EAP-Answer/
                                                     EAP-Payload/EAP-Request
                                                     OTP/OTP Challenge
                            <- PPP EAP-Request/
                            OTP/OTP Challenge
      PPP EAP-Response/
      OTP, OTPpw ->
                            DIAMETER-
                            EAP-Request/
                            EAP-Payload/
                            EAP-Response/
                            OTP, OTPpw ->
                                                     <- DIAMETER-
                                                     EAP-Answer/
                                                     EAP-Payload/EAP-Success
                                                     (other AVPs)
                            <- PPP EAP-Success
      PPP Authentication
      Phase complete,
      NCP Phase starts


  3.3.3:  Server-Initiated Authentication




Calhoun et al.           expires September 2000                [Page 13]


INTERNET DRAFT                                                March 2000


   As described in [6], when a server has successfully authenticated and
   authorized a user, it may include a timeout period to the
   authorization.  The server can later initiate an unsolicited re-
   authentication request to the user, through the NAS. This method has
   the advantage of reducing the number of round trips required for re-
   authentication/authorization.

      Authenticating Peer   NAS                      DIAMETER Server
      -------------------   ---                      ---------------

                                                     <- DIAMETER-EAP-Ind/
                                                     EAP-Payload/EAP-Request
                                                     OTP/OTP Challenge
                            <- PPP EAP-Request/
                            OTP/OTP Challenge
      PPP EAP-Response/
      OTP, OTPpw ->
                            DIAMETER-
                            EAP-Request/
                            EAP-Payload/
                            EAP-Response/
                            OTP, OTPpw ->
                                                     <- DIAMETER-
                                                     EAP-Answer/
                                                     EAP-Payload/EAP-Success
                                                     (other AVPs)
                            <- PPP EAP-Success


3.3.4:  Example of failed EAP Authentication

   In  the  case  where  the  client  fails   EAP   authentication,
   the conversation would appear as follows:


















Calhoun et al.           expires September 2000                [Page 14]


INTERNET DRAFT                                                March 2000


      Authenticating Peer   NAS                      DIAMETER Server
      -------------------   ---                      ---------------

                            <- PPP LCP Request-EAP
                            auth
      PPP LCP ACK-EAP
      auth ->
                            DIAMETER-
                            EAP-Request/
                            EAP-Payload/Start ->
                                                     <- DIAMETER-
                                                     EAP-Answer/
                                                     EAP-Payload/Identity
                            <- PPP EAP-Request/
                            Identity
      PPP EAP-Response/
      Identity (MyID) ->
                            DIAMETER-
                            EAP-Request/
                            EAP-Payload/
                            EAP-Response/
                            (MyID) ->
                                                     <- DIAMETER-
                                                     EAP-Answer/
                                                     EAP-Payload/EAP-Request
                                                     OTP/OTP Challenge
                            <- PPP EAP-Request/
                            OTP/OTP Challenge
      PPP EAP-Response/
      OTP, OTPpw ->
                            DIAMETER-
                            EAP-Request/
                            EAP-Payload/
                            EAP-Response/
                            OTP, OTPpw ->
                                                     <- DIAMETER-
                                                     EAP-Answer/
                                                     EAP-Payload/EAP-Failure
                            <- PPP EAP-Failure

                            <- LCP Terminate


3.3.5:  Example of DIAMETER Server not supporting EAP

   In the case that the DIAMETER server or proxy does not support EAP
   extensions the conversation would appear as follows:




Calhoun et al.           expires September 2000                [Page 15]


INTERNET DRAFT                                                March 2000


      Authenticating Peer   NAS                      DIAMETER Server
      -------------------   ---                      ---------------

                            <- PPP LCP Request-EAP
                            auth
      PPP LCP ACK-EAP
      auth ->
                            DIAMETER
                            EAP-Request/
                            EAP-Payload/Start ->
                                                     <- DIAMETER
                                                     Command-Unrecognized
                            <- PPP LCP Request-CHAP
                            auth

      PPP LCP ACK-CHAP
      auth ->
                            <- PPP CHAP Challenge
      PPP CHAP Response ->
                            DIAMETER
                            AA-Request->
                                                     <- DIAMETER
                                                     AA-Answer
                            <- PPP LCP
                            CHAP-Success
      PPP Authentication
      Phase complete,
      NCP Phase starts


3.3.6:  Example of DIAMETER Proxy not supporting EAP

   In the case where the local DIAMETER Server does support the EAP
   extensions but the remote DIAMETER Server does not, the conversation
   would appear as follows:
















Calhoun et al.           expires September 2000                [Page 16]


INTERNET DRAFT                                                March 2000


      Authenticating Peer   NAS                      DIAMETER Server
      -------------------   ---                      ---------------

                            <- PPP LCP Request-EAP
                            auth
      PPP LCP ACK-EAP
      auth ->
                            DIAMETER-
                            EAP-Request/
                            EAP-Payload/Start ->
                                                     <- DIAMETER-
                                                     EAP-Answer/
                                                     EAP-Payload/Identity
                            <- PPP EAP-Request/
                            Identity
      PPP EAP-Response/
      Identity
      (MyID) ->
                            DIAMETER-
                            EAP-Request/
                            EAP-Payload/EAP-Response/
                            (MyID) ->
                                                     <- DIAMETER-
                                                     EAP-Answer
                                                     (proxied from remote
                                                     DIAMETER Server)
                            <- PPP LCP Request-CHAP
                            auth
      PPP LCP ACK-CHAP
      auth ->
                            <- PPP CHAP Challenge
      PPP CHAP Response ->
                            DIAMETER
                            AA-Request->
                                                     <- DIAMETER
                                                     AA-Answer
                                                     (proxied from remote
                                                     DIAMETER Server)
                            <- PPP LCP
                            CHAP-Success
      PPP Authentication
      Phase complete,
      NCP Phase starts


3.3.7:  Example of PPP Client not supporting EAP

   In the case where the authenticating peer does not support EAP, but



Calhoun et al.           expires September 2000                [Page 17]


INTERNET DRAFT                                                March 2000


   where EAP is required for that user, the conversation would appear as
   follows:

      Authenticating Peer   NAS                      DIAMETER Server
      -------------------   ---                      ---------------

                            <- PPP LCP Request-EAP
                            auth
      PPP LCP NAK-EAP
      auth ->
                            <- PPP LCP Request-EAP
                            auth
      PPP LCP NAK-EAP
      auth ->
                            <- PPP LCP Request-CHAP
                            auth
      PPP LCP ACK-CHAP
      auth ->
                            <- PPP CHAP Challenge
      PPP CHAP Response ->

                            DIAMETER-
                            AA-Request/
                            User-Name,
                            CHAP-Password ->
                                                     <- DIAMETER-
                                                     EAP-Answer/
                                                     EAP-Payload
                            <- LCP Terminate Req


4.0  References

    [1]  Rigney, et alia, "RADIUS", RFC-2138, April 1997
    [2]  P. Calhoun, A. Rubens, H. Akhtar, E. Guttman, "DIAMETER Base
         Protocol", draft-calhoun-diameter-13.txt, IETF work in
         progress, March 2000.
    [3]  P. Calhoun, W. Bulley, A. Rubens, J. Haag, "DIAMETER NASREQ
         Extension", draft-calhoun-diameter-nasreq-02.txt, IETF work in
         progress, March 2000.
    [4]  L. J. Blunk, J. R. Vollbrecht, "PPP Extensible Authentication
         Protocol (EAP)." RFC 2284, March 1998.
    [5]  N Haller, C. Metz, P. Nesset, M. Straw, "A One-Time Password
         (OTP) System", RFC 2289, February 1998.
    [6]  G. Zorn, P. Calhoun, "Limiting Fraud in Roaming", draft-ietf-
         roamops-fraud-limit-00.txt, IETF work in progress, May 1999.
    [7] R. Stewart et al., "Simple Control Transmission Protocol",
         draft-ietf-sigtran-sctp-06.txt, IETF Work in Progress, February



Calhoun et al.           expires September 2000                [Page 18]


INTERNET DRAFT                                                March 2000


         2000.
    [8]  Aboba, Beadles "The Network Access Identifier." RFC 2486.
         January 1999.


5.0  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thank Nenad Trifunovic, Tony Johansson and
   Pankaj Patel for their participation in the Document Reading Party.
   Also a big thanks to Erik Guttman and David Spence for their
   invaluable help in cleaning up this document.

   The authors would also like to acknowledge the following people for
   their contribution in the development of the DIAMETER protocol:

   Bernard Aboba, Jari Arkko, William Bulley, Daniel C. Fox, Lol Grant,
   Ignacio Goyret, Nancy Greene, Peter Heitman, Paul Krumviede, Fergal
   Ladley, Ryan Moats, Victor Muslin, Kenneth Peirce, Sumit Vakil, John
   R. Vollbrecht and Jeff Weisberg and Glen Zorn.


6.0  Authors' Addresses

   Questions about this memo can be directed to:

      Pat R. Calhoun
      Network and Security Research Center, Sun Laboratories
      Sun Microsystems, Inc.
      15 Network Circle
      Menlo Park, California, 94025
      USA

       Phone:  1-650-786-7733
         Fax:  1-650-786-6445
      E-mail:  pcalhoun@eng.sun.com


      Allan C. Rubens
      Tut Systems, Inc.
      220 E. Huron, Suite 260
      Ann Arbor, MI 48104
      USA

       Phone:  1-734-995-1697
      E-Mail:  arubens@tutsys.com


      Haseeb Akhtar



Calhoun et al.           expires September 2000                [Page 19]


INTERNET DRAFT                                                March 2000


      Wireless Technology Labs
      Nortel Networks
      2221 Lakeside Blvd.
      Richardson, TX 75082-4399
      USA

       Phone: 1-972-684-8850
      E-Mail: haseeb@nortelnetworks.com


      William Bulley
      Merit Network, Inc.
      Building One, Suite 2000
      4251 Plymouth Road
      Ann Arbor, Michigan  48105-2785
      USA

       Phone:  1-734-764-9993
         Fax:  1-734-647-3185
      E-mail:  web@merit.edu


      Jeff Haag
      Cisco Systems
      7025 Kit Creek Road
      PO Box 14987
      Research Triangle Park, NC 27709

       Phone:  1-919-392-2353
      E-Mail:  haag@cisco.com


7.0  Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1999).  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



Calhoun et al.           expires September 2000                [Page 20]


INTERNET DRAFT                                                March 2000


   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.











































Calhoun et al.           expires September 2000                [Page 21]