ClearPass Galleria logo sizing

The ClearPass Galleria template makes it easy to have a pretty, screen format responsive captive portal. It’s mostly a case of chuck some images in, set the colours, and then it looks great.

Some of the defaults are a bit odd though, especially the logo size. Recently I built a captive portal for a customer and their logo was king but in Galleria it was far too small.

Fortunately Aruba have made it easy to override CSS in the template. From Administration \ Plugin Manager, choose Configuration on the Galleria plugin in use.

Add your CSS overrides in the HTML HEAD section. This can be used to override any of the CSS in the template. For the logo you want to play around with this:

.nonav-logo img {
max-width: 100%;
max-height: 220px;

Charging EVs

Another post that’s nothing to do with Wi-Fi.

CCS rapid connector (left) – Type 2 connector (right)
Photo – Paul Sladen

Zap-Map is a popular service in the UK for locating EV chargers and, hopefully, getting some indication as to their status. Recently I’ve noticed a lot of chargers marked as faulty with comments like “only charges at 10kW instead of 43kW” or “only supplying 7kW instead of 50kW”. These almost always mean the same thing – the user doesn’t know what they’re doing. The result is a charger gets flagged as faulty when there’s nothing wrong, everything is working just as it should.

I don’t think it’s entirely fair to blame the user here, yes they should have read the manual for their car, but this stuff can be complicated and the dealer supplying their car probably hasn’t explained this because they don’t understand it themselves (there are good car dealers out there selling EVs but I’ve yet to meet one).

In summary for those already bored, every time someone has reported a DC rapid charger is bad because it’s only delivering 7kW, they’ve just used the wrong connector, type2 instead of CCS most likely. If a charge point says it’s 22kW, you won’t get that unless you car’s onboard charger is capable to taking it (Read The Flippin’ Manual). When you connect your new car capable of CCS rapid charging at 100kW to a 125kW charger, you won’t actually get 100kW for much of the time and you might not see that high rate at all. All this is completely normal.

The first key point: public charge points are either AC or DC with many rapid chargers offering both. If you’re plugging in using a type 2 connector then you’ll be charging with AC. Most AC charge points require you to use your own cable but some, mostly older, rapid chargers have a tethered type 2 AC cable, sometimes labelled 43kW.

Fast Charging

The rate at which your car will charge on AC is dictated by the capability of the car’s onboard charger and how much power the charge point signals the car can take.

AC charge points are not chargers at all, they’re basically a fancy switch that supplies mains power to the charger built into the car so it’s important to know what type of onboard charger your car has. It’s most likely to be 7kW (single phase), 11kW (three phase), or 22kW (three phase) if it’s a Renault Zoe or some models of Tesla.

Note: Three phase chargers require a three phase cable. There have been instances where dealers have provided the wrong cable for cars that have a three phase charger as an option. If your 11kW capable car is plugged into a 22kW charge point but only charges at 7kW, check the cable is correct.

Charge points themselves are either single phase in which case they can supply about 7kW or three phase and able to supply up to 22kW, occasionally as much as 43kW, and you can use any of these with any car.

For example my Kia has a 7kW onboard charger. If I connect it to a 7kW PodPoint at the local Lidl I’ll get about 7kW (usually 6.6kW). If I connect it to the 43kW AC connector of a BP Pulse Rapid charger I’ll get about 7kW. So what do I get from a 22kW point? Yep, I’ll get 7kW. If I connect my Zoe with it’s 22kW capability into the same 43kW rapid, I’ll expect to get 22kW.

Rapid charging

eVolt rapid charger with AC, CCS and CHAdeMO

Rapid chargers really are chargers and supply DC directly to the battery in your car, with the charge rate controlled by the car’s battery management system (BMS). These use a different type of connector, either CCS (most new cars) or CHAdeMO (Nissan Leaf, old model Kia Soul EV) and these cables are always tethered, permanently connected to the charger. Earlier I mentioned that some rapid chargers have an AC cable, this can cause confusion as, of course, it will fit your CCS car…. but you’re then using AC and not DC, which is where most of the errant Zap-Map complains come from.

The vast majority of rapid chargers are nominally rated at 50kW with 125, 150 and even 350kW chargers being installed.

Just as with AC, how fast your car actually charges depends on the capabilities of the rapid charger and the car. The big difference is that many cars limit the charge rate depending on the battery’s state of charge and, sometimes, the temperature so how fast it can go will vary.

To give an example again, my Kia can charge at up to 77kW over CCS. In practice it can only take this much power when the battery is below 40% and the charge rate soon tails off. Fastned have really good information about this for many cars. Their graph shows that although my car can take up to 77kW it steps down a few times, and once the battery is over 75% it drops to below 40kW, then below 30kW before tailing off to a trickle as the car approaches 100%

This is why you should never take your car to 100% on a rapid charger… it takes ages and ties up the charger, stopping others from using it. Typically charging on a rapid is also more expensive, so you’re wasting time as well as money…. and annoying anyone else waiting.

I typically see about 43kW reported by my car, which climbs to up towards 50kW right before it sharply steps down at just over 75%, exactly in line with the Fastned graph.

What these graphs demonstrate is there’s a tactic to time efficient rapid charging. If you’re making a long journey, plan charging stops when the battery is going to be getting low. Charging from 20-60% is generally faster than going from 40-80%.

There are folks who say all this is too complicated, and maybe it is. Most EV owners will just plug in at home and never worry about it, but it’s worth understanding at least some of this so you don’t make a fool of yourself on Zap-Map comments. It isn’t that many years ago we had different types of petrol and two stroke oil to contend with, not to mention distributor points and the fact a car would never start on a damp morning. By comparison knowing a couple of headline numbers is hardly a major barrier to EV adoption.

What I’ve said above is true of most cars. There are, of course, exceptions. Firstly Tesla have their own charging network which in some cases delivers rapid charging over type2 connectors. I have no experience of Tesla’s chargers. Some early models of Renault Zoe with the quick charge option can AC charge at 43kW. I believe they’re the only car that can do this and even Renault dropped it. Whilst all models of Renault Zoe can charge at up to 22kW AC only the very latest cars have CCS capability and even then it was an option until mid 2021 so there are plenty of Zoes around that cannot DC rapid charge. There’s no risk of confusion with this as the CCS plug won’t fit.

Cutting red tape

Another of my occasional non Wi-Fi related posts.

There’s often talk in political circles about “cutting red tape” and it’s almost always accepted as a good thing. After all, red tape is that irritating thing that stops us getting stuff done…. and it’s red, which is bad.

But I wonder if you’ve ever stopped and questioned what “cutting red tape” actually means. What is it you want to do, what or who is stopping you from doing it, and why?

A really good example from the world of corporate IT is change management. I don’t know anyone who likes change management. It’s stupid red tape that slows everything down, stalls projects, stops you from simply getting stuff done. It’s the very definition of red tape that we could happily do away with. Yet pretty much every corporate has some form of change control… So if this red tape is so bad, why do so many organisations embrace it?

Back when I ran my own IT department looking after the servers, desktops, and everything in between I could just do stuff. Occasionally when I did stuff everything broke and it was on me to fix it. I was answerable to other people, but they didn’t really understand what I did and generally they were just happy I’d made everything work, and wasn’t I clever.

Later, early on in a different role, I broke something but this time there were questions… managers wanted to know who had approved the change I’d made, the director wanted a report from the change manager about what lessons had been learned and why our roll back plan hadn’t worked (it didn’t exist). It all got very uncomfortable because, unbeknownst to me, there was some quite important red tape I’d just moved out of the way and crawled under that existed to make people like me think through changes more carefully.

We have red tape across our society and, yes, some of it is not helpful. Just as change management can be an unhelpful barrier, a pointless box-ticking exercise and a process that does little more than provide a handy scapegoat on which to dump the blame, red tape in the public sector can absorb time, effort and money, delivering very little.

However when it’s done right, it’s fantastic regulation that empowers people to do their jobs, supports individuals and teams through difficult decisions and prevents those who might take dangerous shortcuts for their own financial gain from doing so, or at least holds them accountable.

When someone talks about “cutting red tape” it’s important to understand what they mean. Is it removing unhelpful bureaucracy or is it removing important protections.

For example in the UK you can’t just do whatever you want with land you own. Planning permission is required for a great many things from modest house extensions up to large scale projects. Planning decides whether you can do it and then building regs serve to make sure it’s done properly. Again, nobody likes planning permission but allowing anyone to build anything without controls would be a complete disaster.

I also wonder who benefits financially from that particular red tape being removed.

Recently it’s been found many of the UK’s water companies are illegally emptying raw sewerage into watercourses, polluting our rivers, the sea around our coastline and our beaches. There are plenty of rules against this sort of thing, but the consequence for breaking these is a fine which, so the accusation goes, is simply absorbed into the cost of doing business. Sometimes that troublesome regulatory red tape is performing a really important task and getting rid of it leaves the way open for unscrupulous operators to do really damaging things. Perhaps, sometimes, rather than less red tape, we need a bit more.

More RadSec fun

A previous post waffled about setting up Radsec between an Aruba AP and ClearPass running in Azure. Having deployed this in a slightly different Azure environment I’ve learned some things worth sharing.

The first thing is ClearPass handles RadSec using RadSec Proxy. This receives the RadSec connection and proxies the RADIUS traffic to the ClearPass RADIUS server. One casualty of this approach is that, at the time of writing, Policy Manager sees these incoming connections as being from localhost.

There are circumstances where it’s useful to know which ClearPass cluster member has dealt with a request. For example if I don’t have a cluster VIP, and that’s not supported in Azure, it’s possible to build HA for a guest portal if you know which server handled the initial MAC-auth. With RadSec you don’t, so this can’t be done.

My Azure lab was very simple, just a ClearPass VM running in an Azure tenant with no Network Security Groups configured. In the production environment I’ve worked with ClearPass was placed in a NSG protected by Azure Firewall which performed source NAT. As a result incoming RadSec connections all have a source of the NSG firewall private range, rather than the true source.

The RadSec tab of the Network Device config in ClearPass lets you set an override source IP. Previously I put the NAT public IP of my client in here. In production I’ve used the internal /26 network range of the azure firewall. The config box takes a range, in this case its

I’ve then used the option to validate the certificate, using the CN or SAN and entered the CN name of the cert issued to that client.

The final point worth noting is neither ClearPass nor the Aruba AP issue keepalives down the TLS tunnel. The Azure firewall drops idle connections after four minutes. This is not configurable. So you will see lots of up and down messages in the event viewer. When I was initially testing this in my lab setup this was an indication of a problem. In production it was just normal behaviour, which caused some confusion.

In a busy network with lots of authentication traffic you’ll probably see the tunnel stay active for much longer. I’m not entirely convinced all is well, but it’s working.

IPSec over fortinet site to site vpn

Here’s a little gem found by a colleague.

A customer has Aruba AOS 8 Gateways communicating with the Mobility Conductor via a fortinet site to site VPN.

The Fortigate units were upgraded and the IPsec traffic from the Gateways to the Mobility Conductor was being dropped. Nobody noticed for a month until the Gateways stopped working because the licenses couldn’t be validated.

My colleague was able to prove the traffic was getting to the Fortigate and was passing through the rules but didn’t arrive at the other end of the tunnel. This smelled to me like an ASIC or acceleration issue, and that’s exactly what it was.

Lots of head scratching later… the issue was solved with npu-offload disable.

The new Fortigates had this acceleration function enabled by default and, it turns out, you can’t pass the Aruba IPSec traffic across the IPSec site to site VPN with npu offload enabled. It might be possible to make this work by changing the IPSec parameters, although I’m not even sure it that’s possible.

As it is, this customer doesn’t need to accelerated performance, they just wanted it to work.

Congrats to Colin Irwin who figured this out.

Fun and games with RadSec

Most of the time we’re using RADIUS over a private management network and don’t really care too much about security, but that changes when you put your authentication server in AWS or Azure and send authentication traffic over public internet. RADIUS is not secure and uses an MD5 hash for encryption that doesn’t meet modern standards. This is where RadSec comes in.

RadSec is effectively RADIUS over TLS with client and server certificates used to authenticate and encrypt the traffic. RadSec uses mutual authentication – at the setup of the tunnel both the client and the server need to successfully authenticate each other for everything to work. Worth noting RadSec only uses a single port – TCP:2083 – rather than separate ports for authentication, accounting and change of authorization (dynamic RADIUS).

To lab this I have ClearPass running in Azure. The authenticator is an AP on a private network, connecting to public internet via a NAT gateway and managed by Aruba Central.

For the server side this certificate authentication is probably familiar territory. You add a server certificate, signed by a CA the client will recognise, and that’s about it. You may of course need to add the CA root to your client’s certificate store. Here’s my RadSec certificate in ClearPass, signed by a private CA.

The network access device entry has the actual private IP address of the AP so I can identify it more easily but ClearPass will see an incoming connection from the NAT public IP. I’ve entered this into override IP under RadSec settings so ClearPass will accept the connection. I can also add certificate validation checks. This lets you separate multiple authenticators behind a single NAT IP. For example if you have both switches and APs on a site and need to handle these differently, placing them in different NAD groups or applying varying attributes. In this case I’m not performing any authorization checks.

Because it’s a private CA I’ve uploaded the root certificate that signed the server certificate (labca_root) into Central and applied this on the group security settings. The CA root is needed for the APs to authenticate the server. I’ve also uploaded a client certificate (radsec_client_san) that the APs use when contacting the server. The same CA was used for this so the root certificate has also been added to the ClearPass certificate trust list.

The way Aruba Central handles things, these certificates are used by all devices in that group. So all my APs will use the same client certificate. Best practice with Aruba Instant is to proxy RADIUS traffic via the Virtual Controller. This changes in AOS10, but it’s likely a single certificate used to authenticate all devices within a group is just fine. You can assign certificates per device using template groups but you’d really need a very good reason to want to do that. Don’t make this more complicated than it needs to be.

That’s where most of the documentation ends. But it didn’t work.

The one place I got stuck for an embarrassingly long time was getting the client certificate to work. I’m no expert on working with OpenSSL but to save you my pain, here’s what I eventually realised.

All certs, server and client, should have a subject alternate name with the IP address. This means things still work if the client can’t resolve the DNS name of the server, and it’s essential for the client certificate to have the IP address from which the client will connect included, so in this case it’s the NAT public IP. You can include multiple IPs for a certificate that’s being used across various sites. I don’t believe there’s a viable solution for not having static addressing. Dynamic DNS won’t help you here.

The client certificate needs to be just that, a client cert. Specifically it needs the X509v3 extended key usage variable of: TLS Web Server Authentication. In this output from OpenSSL you can also see the Subject Alternative Name appears where, trust me, the IPs are listed.

If you don’t have either the IP address your authenticator is connecting from in the certificate, either as the CN or in the SAN, or the TLS Web Server Authentication extension it won’t work and you’ll get unhelpful errors on the AP such as:

radsec_read_from_tls_socket:311: some error(6) encountered while reading

If, like me, you’re using ClearPass and, unlike me, have an Onboard CA you can generate the client certificate there. For my purposes I’m using OpenSSL to do this. There lots of tutorials in how to use it, but here’s what I did.

Create a config file with the necessary settings, which I saved as san.cnf

distinguished_name = req_distinguished_name
req_extensions = v3_req
prompt = no
C = GB
ST = The Shire
L = York
O = Homelab Inc
CN = aps.homelab.home
extendedKeyUsage = serverAuth, clientAuth, codeSigning, emailProtection
basicConstraints = CA:FALSE
keyUsage = nonRepudiation, digitalSignature, keyEncipherment
subjectAltName = @alt_names
DNS.1 = <ip1>
DNS.2 = <ip2>

Generating the CSR: openssl req -nodes -newkey rsa:2048 -keyout radsec_client.key -out radsec_client.csr -config san.cnf

Making the certificate – for this I’d already created my private CA root, which is what’s referenced as the root.pem and root.key: openssl x509 -req -in radsec_client.csr -CA root.pem -CAkey root.key -CAcreateserial -out radsec_client.crt -days 7200 -sha256 -extensions v3_req -extfile san.cnf

In order to import the client cert it often needs to be in pkcs12 format: openssl pkcs12 -export -out radsec_client.pfx -inkey radsec_client.key -in radsec_client.crt

There’s no requirement for the client and server certificates to use the same CA, in this case it allows easy rolling of certs that are valid for a long time, which is beneficial for this use case. Using OpenSSL for a simple private CA is really, easy, here’s a good run through.

As I said before, getting all this to work took an embarrassingly long time. In my defence this is mainly because when things don’t work there’s very little useful information logged, hence this post which may be useful to someone, not least me when I need to do this again in a few years.

One final thought on this. Certificates get forgotten and expire causing merry hell with infrastructure when they do. In this deployment, using ClearPass and Central managed APs it’s trivially easy to update the certificate so if you have to use a CA that doesn’t let you create long expiry dates that’s probably not the end of the world. However be sure to set a diary reminder so that work can be scheduled. It’s quick and easy to do but it’s still potentially disruptive.

As certificate expiry terms get ever shorter, there remain areas where mutual authentication is valuable but changing things, even by automation, is undesirable. I’d still advocate using a nice long expiry date for certificates internal to infrastructure. I admit the 20 year cert life span of my lab CA is, perhaps, a bit extreme

The wall of RF doom

Here’s a video post about an interesting building construction that, probably, few will encounter so I thought it might be interesting. Also the perils of making assumptions about building construction when working on Wi-Fi designs.

My CWNE essays

Recently my friend and former 😢colleague Mac_wifi has called on others in the community to publish their CWNE application essays as a resource, benchmark, encouragement to others seeking to achieve the CWNE certification. I think this is a good idea. Nobody had asked me to write an essay in over 20 years and I wasn’t quite sure where to start. Hopefully a few of the current crop of CWNEs sharing their submission will help guide others.

Here’s a link to that blog post

I agree with the CWNP’s approach to their expert level. If you’re used to sitting multiple choice exams through Pearson Vue for your IT certs the need for an essay might seem a bit strange. Indeed many certification streams award the expert level automatically once enough exams have been passed. There’s nothing wrong with that approach but CWNP chose to take a different route for a good reason.

To become a CWNE, in addition to passing the exams, you need at least five years experience working in enterprise wireless networking, have people prepared to endorse you and write three essays to demonstrate that knowledge and experience.

What that means is a CWNE knows their stuff, has walked the walk and … well you know how the rest of that goes. It means a CWNE has experience that goes beyond the theoretical knowledge one can gather by studying for certification.

Some advice I’d offer anyone aiming for CWNE certification is to gather real world examples of solutions delivered and problems solved for your essays. In the rushing around of daily life it’s easy to fix a problem, move on to the next thing and then forget about the details. It’s also worth remembering your essays don’t need to be a technical tour de force of excellence, proving your capabilities as a Wi-Fi super human. We all know the real world is full of compromises. Name them and explain them. I consider an essay that knowingly describes a flawed implementation speaks more of experience than a textbook “perfect” network design, for example.

So those essays…

Essay 1 – Design
Essay 2 – Security
Essay 3 – Analysis

I’m always happy to talk further with anyone about this, if you want to get in touch you can reach out to me on twitter

MOAR Channelz!!!

Something that happened in November 2020 but that slipped past me until today is the FCC opened up some of the UNII-4 band for unlicensed usage, which includes Wi-Fi.

It isn’t much, only 45MHz but because of where it sits, just beyond UNII-3, it’s really useful extra bandwidth.

UNII-3 is where channels 149-165 live with the band providing 5 x 20MHz channels, 2 x 40MHz and therefore 1 x 80MHz. Opening up just part of the UNII-4 band nicely rounds things off at the top of the existing 5GHz Wi-Fi spectrum allowing another 3 x 20MHz channels (169, 173 & 177), 2 x 40MHz, 1 x 80MHz and therefore making a new 160MHz channel possible.

This is, of course, excellent news. We love more channel capacity especially as it’s likely many chipsets will already support these channels so if we’re lucky extra capacity can be made available with a firmware upgrade.

To bring reality crashing in, it’s worth noting this is the FCC… I don’t believe there’s any word about what European and UK regulators are going to do. Hopefully they’ll follow suit, but we’ll have to wait and see.

Also, whilst extending bands is a great way to add capacity with existing equipment it raises the spectre of compatibility problems. The lovely enterprise Wi-Fi network you manage may well support these channels but if client devices do not then you can’t use them.

Getting certified

Recently I’ve been on a bit of a certification binge, gathering ACCP, ACMP, and ACSP from Aruba, CCSA from Check Point and I was very excited to achieve the expert level certification from CWNP. I am now CWNE #420 (yes I know….)

For a long time I considered a lot of IT certifications to be… a bit thin, maybe not worth the paper they’re written on…. that sort of thing. I thought I had good reasons for this but now I think I misunderstood what that certification meant. So what do I think now?

Anyone in the UK is probably familiar with the MOT. The annual road worthiness test cars over three years old are subjected to. A well serviced car should always sail through but just because your car passes the MOT, doesn’t mean it’s actually road worthy, or even safe.

What you’re getting is a snapshot of a moment in time when everything appeared to be ok. It doesn’t mean you can just ignore everything for another year. If the brakes don’t seem right, you’ll get ’em checked.

Before I fall too far down this analogy, what’s my point?

Most IT certifications are awarded after an exam that tests knowledge and understanding as best as possible. What’s very hard to test is an individual’s ability to apply that knowledge…. experience.

I have met people who were well qualified, with all the appropriate IT certifications who, despite this, just couldn’t fix the problem, design the thing, make it work. Just like the MOT, having the certification alone doesn’t guarantee anything.

Certification plus experience is a great combination. Quite a few certification paths suggest you should have a few years experience under your belt before you start. Someone who has been working in a field for a few years and has achieved the relevant certification shows much more than a newbie who’s crammed for the exam.

Certification is a great way to learn a product. You might have been working with Aruba ClearPass for several years, as I have, but maybe you’ve never touched Onguard. To pass the exam you need to learn about the whole product, even the bits you don’t use day to day.

Certification without experience still has value, but less value imho. Some people are just good at exams. They can cram. They can learn the correct answers. They can remember enough, for long enough, to get through. That doesn’t prove they can take that knowledge and apply it appropriately, but it might just give the edge if they’re up against someone with neither experience nor certs. At least it shows some drive and interest.

Just as the MOT certificate hopefully means the car is actually roadworthy, IT certification should tell you someone understands the principles and concepts of the product. If it turns out they don’t, you’ll probably discover that pretty quickly.

For many years I was looking after too many things to really get to grips with everything. I became very good at working out how to make something work, doing that, and then forgetting about it.

Personally I’ve found studying for certification exams to be a great way to focus the mind. To dig into products that previously I might have skimmed over, things I’ve never understood but could make work I now have a much deeper knowledge of. That’s important when they stop working…. or you need to justify to someone why you should be doing this thing and being paid well for it.

That’s now what I consider the IT certs I’ve achieved to be all about. They’re a framework for learning something focused on a technology or specific product and then validating that.

The further down a track you find interesting, the more rewarding it is to get the achievements.

As everyone who’s been granted CWNE status will tell you, it represents a lot of work – not just learning to pass exams but actively working in the field and gaining experience.

Quite apart from anything else the gentle ego massage of passing an exam doesn’t get old.