The state of TACACS+

Christopher Morrow christopher.morrow at gmail.com
Mon Dec 30 13:49:20 UTC 2013


Nor accounting...
On Dec 30, 2013 8:48 AM, "Christopher Morrow" <christopher.morrow at gmail.com>
wrote:

> I don't think radius nor kerberos nor ssh with certificates supports
> command authorization, do they?
> On Dec 30, 2013 6:33 AM, "Saku Ytti" <saku at ytti.fi> wrote:
>
>> On (2013-12-30 05:06 -0500), Robert Drake wrote:
>>
>> > TACACS+ was proposed as a standard to the IETF.  They never adopted
>> > it and let the standards draft expire in 1998.  Since then there
>>
>> If continued existence of TACACS+ can be justified at IETF level, in
>> parallel
>> with radius and diameter, I have some interest in the subject and would be
>> ready to work with draft.
>>
>> > Encryption:
>> >
>> > For new crypto I would advise multiple cipher support with
>> > negotiation so you know what each client and server is capable of.
>> > If the client and server supported multiple keys (with a keyid) it
>>
>> It seems encryption is your only/major woe? Personally I don't like how we
>> need to keep reimplementing crypto per-application level. We're living in
>> a
>> world where crypto should be standard for all connection, not application
>> issue. There are some solutions to this like BEEP framework or new L4
>> protocol
>> like QUIC and MinimaLT, any of which I think would be workable as
>> mandatory
>> transport for TACACS.
>>
>> > Clients:
>> >
>> > "official" version that debian and freebsd use.  I looked at some of
>> > the others and they all seemed to derive from Cisco's code directly
>>
>> There is also commercial server 'radiator' which does radius and tacacs
>> amongst others.
>>
>> > Did everyone already know this but me?  If so have you moved to
>>
>> I think I missed the key revelation. The naive encryption? The limited
>> amount
>> of software available?
>>
>> > Kerberos?  Can Kerberos do everything TACACS+ was doing for router
>>
>> I think from networker point of view, it's radiator or tacacs, if it has
>> to
>> work today without new software. And if it can require new software, it
>> can be
>> pretty much arbitrary new protocol, if sound justification can be found.
>>
>> --
>>   ++ytti
>>
>>


More information about the NANOG mailing list