Dynamic Host Configuration Working                            D. Hankins
Group                                                                ISC
Internet-Draft                                         September 8, 2008
Intended status: Informational
Expires: March 12, 2009

                Guidelines for Creating New DHCP Options

Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
   applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
   have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
   aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.

   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-

   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

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

   This Internet-Draft will expire on March 12, 2009.


   This document seeks to provide guidance to prospective DHCP Option
   authors, to help them in producing option formats that are easily

Hankins                  Expires March 12, 2009                 [Page 1]

Internet-Draft               DHCP Guidelines              September 2008

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  When to Use DHCP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   3.  General Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   4.  Reusing Other Options  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   5.  Conditional Formatting is Hard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   6.  Avoid Aliasing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   7.  New Formats  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   8.  Option Size  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   9.  Clients Request their Options  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   10. Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   11. IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   Appendix A.   Background on ISC DHCP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   Appendix A.1. Atomic DHCP  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   12. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
   Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 17

Hankins                  Expires March 12, 2009                 [Page 2]

Internet-Draft               DHCP Guidelines              September 2008

1.  Introduction

   Most protocol developers ask themselves if a protocol will work, or
   work efficiently.  These are important questions, but another less
   frequently considered is whether the proposed protocol presents
   itself needless barriers to adoption by deployed software.

   DHCPv4 [RFC2131] and DHCPv6 [RFC3315] software implementors are not
   merely faced with the task of a given option's format on the wire.
   The option must 'fit' into every stage of the system's process, which
   includes user interface considerations.  As an aide to understanding
   the potential implementation challenges of any new DHCP Option, one
   implementation's approach to tackling DHCP Option formats
   (Appendix A) has been included in an Appendix.

   Another, and more frequently overlooked, aspect of rapid adoption is
   whether or not the option would require operators to be intimately
   familiar with the option's internal format in order to make use of
   it.  Most DHCP software provides a facility for "unknown options" at
   the time of publication to be configured by hand by an operator.  But
   if doing so requires extensive reading (more than can be covered in a
   simple FAQ for example), it inhibits adoption.

   So although a given solution would work, and might even be space,
   time, or aesthetically optimal, a given option is going to have a
   rough time being adopted by deployed software if it requires code
   changes.  A rougher time still, if it does not share its deployment
   fate in a general manner with other options of pressing need.

   There are many things DHCP option authors can do to form DHCP Options
   to make software implementors lives easier, and improve the chances
   that the Option is formally adopted in deployed software after it has
   been assigned an Option Code.

2.  When to Use DHCP

   Principally, DHCP carries configuration parameters for its clients.
   Any knob, dial, slider, or checkbox on the client system, such as "my
   domain name servers", "my hostname", or even "my shutdown
   temperature" are candidates for being configured by DHCP.

   The presence of such a knob isn't enough, however, because
   secondarily, DHCP also presents the extension of an administrative
   domain - that of the systems operator of the network to which the
   client is currently attached.  Someone runs not only the local
   switching network infrastructure that the client is directly (or
   wirelessly) attached to, but the various methods of accessing the

Hankins                  Expires March 12, 2009                 [Page 3]

Internet-Draft               DHCP Guidelines              September 2008

   external Internet via local assist services that network must also
   provide (such as domain name servers, or routers).  This means that
   in addition to the existence of a configuration parameter, one must
   also ask themselves if it is reasoanble for this parameter to be set
   by the DHCP server operator.

   Bear in mind that the client still reserves the right to over-ride or
   ignore values received via DHCP (for example, due to having a
   manually configured value by its operator), and that at least one
   main use case for DHCP is the corporate enterprise - so even if the
   local Net Cafe is not a suitable source of this configuration, it is
   likely that the client will at some point return to a network whose
   operator is also the system's rightful master.

3.  General Principles

   The primary principle to follow in order to enhance an option's
   adoptability is certainly simplification.  But more specifically, to
   create the option in such a way that it should not require any new or
   special case software to support.  If old software currently deployed
   and in the field can adopt the option through supplied configuration
   conveniences then it's fairly well assured that new software can
   easily formally adopt it.

   There are at least two classes of DHCP options.  A bulk class of
   options which are provided explicitly to carry data from one side of
   the DHCP exchange to the other (such as nameservers, domain names, or
   time servers), and a protocol class of options which require special
   processing on the part of the DHCP software or are used during
   special processing (such as the FQDN options ([RFC4702], [RFC4704]),
   DHCPv4 message type option [RFC2132], link selection options
   ([RFC3011], [RFC3527]), and so forth).

   The guidelines laid out here should be understood to be relaxed for
   the protocol class of options.  Wherever special-case-code is already
   required to adopt the DHCP option, it is substantially more
   reasonable to format the option in a less generic fashion, if there
   are measurable benefits to doing so.

4.  Reusing Other Options

   In DHCPv4, there are now nearly one hundred and thirty options, at
   least as IETF standards, which might be used as an example.  There is
   also one handy document [RFC2132] containing many option definitions.

   Although some may not like the way an old option that solves a

Hankins                  Expires March 12, 2009                 [Page 4]

Internet-Draft               DHCP Guidelines              September 2008

   similar problem was approached, and it may waste space or processing
   time or have ugly characteristics, it can usually be said that
   duplicating that which has already been adopted has the greatest
   chance of being adopted quickly and easily.

   So it is preferrable to consider the bulk of DHCP options already
   allocated, and consider which of those solve a similar problem.  It
   may even be that an option that solves the problem already exists.

   But as there are so many options to choose from, this isn't entirely
   practical.  So, the following list of common option formats is
   provided as a shorthand.  Please note that it is not complete in
   terms of exampling every option format ever devised...it is only a
   list of option format fragments which are used in two or more

                          Common Option Fragments

   |      Fragment |  Size | Types of Uses                             |
   |  ipv4-address |   4   | Default gateway, requested address,       |
   |               |       | subnet mask [RFC2132], addresses of       |
   |               |       | servers ([RFC2132], [RFC2241], [RFC2242], |
   |               |       | [RFC3495], [RFC3634], [RFC4174]), as a    |
   |               |       | component in a list of routes [RFC3442].  |
   |  ipv6-address |   16  | DHCPv6 server unicast address [RFC3315],  |
   |               |       | addresses of servers ([RFC3319],          |
   |               |       | [RFC3646], [RFC3898], [RFC4075],          |
   |               |       | [RFC4280]).                               |
   |        32-bit |   4   | Signed or unsigned varieties.  Deprecated |
   |       integer |       | [RFC4833] use for timezone time offset    |
   |               |       | [RFC2132].  Other uses for host           |
   |               |       | configuration values such as path mtu     |
   |               |       | aging timeouts, arp cache timeouts, tcp   |
   |               |       | keepalive intervals [RFC2132].  Also used |
   |               |       | by the DHCPv4 protocol for relative       |
   |               |       | times, and times since epoch.             |
   |        16-bit |   2   | Client configuration parameters, such as  |
   |       integer |       | MTU, maximum datagram reassembly limits,  |
   |               |       | the DHCPv4 maximum message size           |
   |               |       | [RFC2132], or the elapsed time option     |
   |               |       | [RFC3315] in DHCPv6.                      |

Hankins                  Expires March 12, 2009                 [Page 5]

Internet-Draft               DHCP Guidelines              September 2008

   | 8-bit integer |   1   | Used for host configuration parameters,   |
   |               |       | such as the default IP TTL, default TCP   |
   |               |       | TTL, NetBIOS node type [RFC2132].  Also   |
   |               |       | used for protocol features, such as the   |
   |               |       | DHCPv4 Option Overload (as flags), DHCP   |
   |               |       | Message Type (as an enumeration) or       |
   |               |       | DHCPv6 Preference [RFC3315].              |
   |     NVT-Ascii | unlim | This is the kitchen sink of common        |
   |          Text |       | fragments.  Common uses are for filenames |
   |               |       | (such as TFTP paths), host or domain      |
   |               |       | names (but this should be discouraged),   |
   |               |       | or protocol features such as textual      |
   |               |       | messages such as verbose error            |
   |               |       | indicators.  Since the size of this       |
   |               |       | format cannot be determined (it is not    |
   |               |       | NULL terminated), it consumes any         |
   |               |       | remaining space in the option.            |
   |      DNS Wire | unlim | Presently used for 'domain search' lists  |
   | Format Domain |       | in both DHCPv4 [RFC3397] and DHCPv6       |
   |     Name List |       | [RFC3646], but also used in DHCPv6 for    |
   |     [RFC1035] |       | any host or domain name.  A field         |
   |               |       | formatted this way may have a determinate |
   |               |       | length if the number of root labels is    |
   |               |       | limited, but use of this format as being  |
   |               |       | a determinate length should be            |
   |               |       | discouraged in DHCPv4, less so in DHCPv6. |
   |   'suboption' | unlim | The Relay Agent Information Option        |
   | encapsulation |       | [RFC3046], vendor options [RFC2132],      |
   |               |       | Vendor Identified Vendor SubOptions       |
   |               |       | ([RFC3925], [RFC3315]).  Commonly used    |
   |               |       | for situations where the full format      |
   |               |       | cannot be known initially, such as where  |
   |               |       | there seems to be some room for later     |
   |               |       | protocol work to expand the amount of     |
   |               |       | information carried, or where the full    |
   |               |       | extent of data carried is defined in a    |
   |               |       | private specification (such as with       |
   |               |       | vendor options).  Encapsulations do not   |
   |               |       | use 'PAD' and 'END' options in DHCPv4,    |
   |               |       | and there are no such options in DHCPv6,  |
   |               |       | so this format also is of indeterminate   |
   |               |       | length.                                   |

                                  Table 1

   One approach to manufacturing simple DHCP Options is to assemble the
   option out of whatever common fragments fit - possibly allowing one

Hankins                  Expires March 12, 2009                 [Page 6]

Internet-Draft               DHCP Guidelines              September 2008

   or more fragments to repeat to fill the remaining space (if present)
   and so provide multiple values.  Place all fixed size values at the
   start of the option, and any variable/indeterminate sized values at
   the tail end of the option.  If there are more than one variable/
   indeterminate length values, consider the use of multiple options or

   This estimates that implementations will be able to reuse code paths
   designed to support the other options.

5.  Conditional Formatting is Hard

   Placing a byte at the start of the option which informs the software
   how to process the remaining bytes of the option may appear simple to
   the casual observer.  But there are no such conditional formatting
   methods in existence today, so it must therefore require new, special
   case code, be written for this purpose.

   Wherever possible, used fixed length buffers to carry the information
   desired.  Obviously, this becomes less possible as the fixed length
   buffer approaches large sizes, at least in DHCPv4, where DHCP packet
   space is limited.

6.  Avoid Aliasing

   Options are said to be aliases of each other if they provide input to
   the same configuration parameter.  A commonly proposed example is to
   configure the location of some new service ("my foo server") using a
   binary IP address, a domain name field, and a URL.  This kind of
   aliasing is undesirable, and is best avoided.

   In this case, where three different formats are supposed, it triples
   the work of the software involved, requiring support for not merely
   one format, but support to produce and digest all three.  Since
   clients cannot predict what values the server will provide, they must
   request all formats...so in the case where the server is configured
   with all formats, DHCP option space is wasted on option contents that
   are redundant.

   It also becomes unclear which types of values are mandatory, and how
   configuring some of the options may influence the others.  For
   example, if an operator configures the URL only, should the server
   synthesize a domain name and ip address?

   A single configuration value on a host is probably presented to the
   operator (or other software on the machine) in a single field or

Hankins                  Expires March 12, 2009                 [Page 7]

Internet-Draft               DHCP Guidelines              September 2008

   channel.  If that channel has a natural format, then any alternative
   formats merely make more work for intervening software in providing

   So the best advice is to choose the one method that best fulfills the
   requirements, be that for simplicity (such as with an ip address),
   late binding (such as with DNS), or completeness (such as with a

7.  New Formats

   If the Option simply will not fit into any existing work, the last
   recourse is to contrive a new format to fit.

   When doing so, it is not enough to gauge whether or not the option
   format will work in the context of the option presently being
   considered.  It is equally important to consider if the new format
   might reasonably have any other uses, and if so, to create the option
   with the foreknowledge that it may later become a common fragment.

   One specific consideration to evaluate, is whether or not options of
   a similar format would need to have multiple or single values encoded
   (whatever differs from the current option), and how that might be
   accomplished in a similar format.

8.  Option Size

   DHCPv4 [RFC2131] options payload space is limited, as there are a
   number of unaddressed deployment problems with DHCPv4 packet sizes.
   The end result is that you should build your option to the assumption
   that the packet will be no larger than 576 bytes.  This means that
   the options payload space will be 312 bytes, which you will have to
   share with other options.  This space can be extended by making use
   of Option Overloading [RFC2132], which allows the use of the BOOTP
   FILE and SNAME header fields for carrying DHCPv4 options (adding 192
   bytes), but these header fields will not be available for overloading
   if they have been configured to carry a value.

   DHCPv6 [RFC3315] is much better off.  First, through its use of link-
   local addresses, it steps aside many of the deployment problems that
   plague DHCPv4, and looks a great deal more like any other UDP based
   application; oblivious to packet sizes up to 64KB.  Second, RFC3315
   explicitly refers readers to RFC2460 Section 5, which describes an
   MTU of 1280 octets and a minimum fragment reassembly of 1500 octets.
   It's much more feasible to suggest that DHCPv6 is capable of having
   larger options deployed over it, and at least no common upper limit

Hankins                  Expires March 12, 2009                 [Page 8]

Internet-Draft               DHCP Guidelines              September 2008

   is yet known to have been encoded by its implementors.  It is
   impossible to describe any fixed limit that cleanly divides those too
   big from the workable.

   So in either protocol, it is advantageous to prefer option formats
   which contain the desired information in the smallest form factor
   that solves the requirements.  One example is to use a 4-octet IPv4
   address rather than a fully qualified domain name, because many DHCP
   servers will perform DNS resolution on configured FQDN's (so the DNS
   recursive lookup is performed anyway).  There may be motivations to
   use the fully qualified domain name anyway, such as if the intended
   RRSET is not an address, or if the client must refresh the name more
   frequently than common lease renewal periods.

   When it is not possible to compress the configuration contents either
   because of the simple size of the parameters, or because it is
   expected that very large configurations are valid, it may be
   preferrable to use a second stage configuration.  Some examples of
   this are to provide TFTP server and pathnames, or a URL, which the
   client will load and process externally to the DHCP protocol.

   In the case where a DHCPv4 option may, or will, exceed 255 bytes in
   length (and thus exceed the 'length' field's ability to contain it),
   a DHCPv4 option will simply be fragmented into multiple options
   within the packet.  DHCP software processing these fragments will
   concatenate them, in the order they appear as defined by RFC2131
   [RFC2131], prior to evaluating their contents.  This is an important
   distinction that is sometimes overlooked by authors - these multiple
   options do not represent multiple options formatted precisely as you
   have defined, but rather one option that has been split along any
   arbitrary point into multiple containers.  When documenting an
   example, then, try to make sure that the division point you select as
   an example does not lie on a clean division of your option contents -
   place it at an offset so as to reinforce that these values must be
   concatenated rather than processed individually.

   DHCPv4 option fragments are a basic protocol feature, so there
   usually is no reason to mention this feature in new option
   definitions, unless of course the option is very likely to exceed 255
   bytes, or the documented example(s) are this big.

   Note that option fragmentation is also a very common side-effect of
   running out of options space, and moving to overloaded FILE or SNAME
   fields.  Although the option may be considerably shorter than 255
   bytes, if it does not fit in the remaining space then software may
   consume all remaining options space with one option fragment, and
   place the remainder in an overloaded field.

Hankins                  Expires March 12, 2009                 [Page 9]

Internet-Draft               DHCP Guidelines              September 2008

9.  Clients Request their Options

   The DHCPv4 Parameter Request List [RFC2132], and the DHCPv6 Option
   Request Option (OPTION_ORO) [RFC3315], are both optoins that serve
   two purposes - to inform the server what option(s) the client
   supports and is willing to digest, and in what order of priority the
   client places those option contents (in the event that they will not
   fit in the packet, later options are to be dropped).

   It doesn't make sense for some options to appear on this parameter
   request list, such as those are formed by elements of the protocol's
   internal workings, or are formed on either end by DHCP-level software
   engaged in some exchange of information.  When in any form of doubt,
   assume that any new option must be present on the relevant option
   request list if the client desires it.

   It is a frequent mistake of option draft authors, then, to create
   text that implies that a server will simply provide the new option,
   and clients will digest it.  Generally, it's best to also specify
   that clients MUST place the new option code on the relevant list
   option, clients MAY include the new option in their packets to
   servers with hints as to values they desire, and servers MAY respond
   with the option contents (if they have been so configured).

   Under only the most dire of circumstances should a new option
   definition require special ordering of options either in the relevant
   request option, or in the order of packets returned on the server's
   reply.  Although the request option does display a preferred
   priority, which implies an order, a server may shuffle options around
   in a DHCPv4 packet in order to make them fit, and server software may
   sort DHCPv6 options into strange orders.  There is not one universal

10.  Security Considerations

   DHCP does have an Authentication mechanism ([RFC3118], [RFC3315],
   [RFC4030]), where it is possible for DHCP software to discriminate
   between authentic endpoints and men in the middle.

   However, at this date the mechanism is poorly deployed.  It also does
   not provide end-to-end encryption.

   So, while creating a new option, bear in mind that DHCP packet
   contents are always transmitted in the clear, and actual production
   use of the software will probably be vulnerable at least to men in
   the middle attacks from within the network, even where the network
   itself is protected from external attacks by firewalls.  In

Hankins                  Expires March 12, 2009                [Page 10]

Internet-Draft               DHCP Guidelines              September 2008

   particular, some DHCP message exchanges are transmitted to broadcast
   or multicast addresses that are likely broadcast anyway.

   If an option is of a specific fixed length, it is useful to remind
   the implementer of the option data's full length.  This is easily
   done by declaring the specific value of the 'length' tag of the
   option.  This helps to gently remind implementers to validate option
   length before digesting them into likewise fixed length regions of
   memory or stack.

   If an option may be of variable size (such as having indeterminate
   length fields, such as domain names or text strings), it is advisable
   to explicitly remind the implementor to be aware of the potential for
   long options.  Either by defining a reasonable upper limit, or
   explicitly reminding the implementor that an option may be
   exceptionally long.

   For some option contents, "insane values" may be used to breach
   security.  An IP address field might be made to carry a loopback
   address, or local broadcast address, and depending on the protocol
   this may lead to undesirable results.  A domain name field may be
   filled with contrived contents that exceed the limitations placed
   upon domain name formatting...as this value is possibly delivered to
   "internal configuration" records of the system, it may be trusted,
   rather than validated.

   So it behooves an option's definition to contain any validation
   measures as can reasonably be made.

11.  IANA Considerations

   This document has no actions for IANA.

Appendix A.  Background on ISC DHCP

   The ISC DHCP software package was mostly written by Ted Lemon in
   cooperation with Nominum, Inc. Since then, it has been given to
   Internet Systems Consortium, Inc. ("ISC") where it has been
   maintained in the public interest by contributors and ISC employees.

   It includes a DHCP Server, Relay, and Client implementation, with a
   common library of DHCP protocol handling procedures.

   The DHCP Client may be found on some Linux distributions, and FreeBSD
   5 and earlier.  Variations ("Forks") of older versions of the client
   may be found on several BSDs, including FreeBSD 6 and later.

Hankins                  Expires March 12, 2009                [Page 11]

Internet-Draft               DHCP Guidelines              September 2008

   The DHCP Server implementation is known to be in wide use by many
   Unix-based servers, and comes pre-installed on most Linux

   The ISC DHCP Software Suite has to allow:

   o  Administrators to configure arbitrary DHCP Option Wire Formats for
      options that either were not published at the time the software
      released, or are of the System Administrator's invention (such as
      'Site-Local' [RFC3942] options), or finally were of Vendor design
      (Vendor Encapsulated Options [RFC2132] or similar).

   o  Pre-defined names and formats of options allocated by IANA and
      defined by the IETF Standards body.

   o  Applications deriving their configuration parameters from values
      provided by these options to receive and understand their content.
      Often, the binary format on the wire is not helpful or digestable
      by, for example, 'ifconfig' or '/etc/resolv.conf'.

   So, one can imagine that this would require a number of software

   1.  To read operator-written configuration value into memory.

   2.  To write the in-memory representation into protocol wire format.

   3.  To read the protocol wire format into memory.

   4.  To write the in-memory format to persistent storage (to cache
       across reboots for example).

   5.  To write the in-memory format to a format that can be consumed by

   If every option were formatted differently and uniquely, then we
   would have to write 6 functions for every option.  As there is the
   potential for as many as 254 DHCPv4 options, or 65536 DHCPv6 options,
   not to mention the various encapsulated spaces ("suboptions"), this
   is not scalable.

   One simple trick is to make the in-memory format the same as the wire
   format.  This reduces the number of functions required from 5 to 4.
   This is not always workable - sometimes an intermediary format is
   required, but it is a good general case.

   Another simple trick is to use the same (or very nearly the same)
   format for persistent storage as is used to convey parameters to

Hankins                  Expires March 12, 2009                [Page 12]

Internet-Draft               DHCP Guidelines              September 2008

   applications.  This reduces the number of functions again from 4 to

   This is still an intractable number of functions per each DHCP
   option.  So, we need a way to reduce this to small orders.

Appendix A.1.  Atomic DHCP

   To accomplish these goals, a common "Format String" is used to
   describe, in abstract, all of the above.  Each byte in this format
   string represents a "DHCP Atom".  We chain these 'atoms' together,
   forming a sort of molecular structure for a particular DHCP Option.

   Configuration Syntax language allows the user to construct such a
   format string without having to understand how the Atom is encoded on
   the wire, and how it is configured or presented.

   You can reasonably imagine that the various common formats of DHCP
   options described above (Table 1) each have an Atom associated with
   it.  There are special use Atoms, such as one to repeat the previous
   Atoms indefinitely (for example, for options with multiple IPv4
   addresses one after the other), and one which makes the previous Atom

   As the software encounters a format string, it processes each Atom
   individually to read, formulate in memory, or write to output the
   various option contents.

   The format strings themselves are either hard coded by the software
   in a table of option definitions, or are compiled at runtime through
   configuration syntax generated by the operator.

           option [space].[option] code [number] = [definition];

   The "space" refers to the option space, which may be the DHCPv4
   option space, the DHCPv6 option space, or any suboption space such as
   the DHCPv4 Relay Agent Information suboptions or similar.

   The "option" refers to the option's symbolic name within that space.

   The code number refers to the binary code assigned to this option.

   The definition is a complex statement that brings together DHCP
   Atoms, many of which are the aforementioned common formats, that
   compose this option.  For example, here are two predefined options,
   as they might have been configured for use by an operator if the
   software did not already support them.

Hankins                  Expires March 12, 2009                [Page 13]

Internet-Draft               DHCP Guidelines              September 2008

        option dhcp.path-mtu-plateau-table code 25 =
                                           array of unsigned integer 16;
        option dhcp.static-routes code 33 = array of { ip-address,
                                                       ip-address };

        option dhcp.path-mtu-plataeu-table 4352, 1500, 576;
        option dhcp.static-routes,

12.  Informative References

   [RFC1035]  Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
              specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987.

   [RFC2131]  Droms, R., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol",
              RFC 2131, March 1997.

   [RFC2132]  Alexander, S. and R. Droms, "DHCP Options and BOOTP Vendor
              Extensions", RFC 2132, March 1997.

   [RFC2241]  Provan, D., "DHCP Options for Novell Directory Services",
              RFC 2241, November 1997.

   [RFC2242]  Droms, R. and K. Fong, "NetWare/IP Domain Name and
              Information", RFC 2242, November 1997.

   [RFC3011]  Waters, G., "The IPv4 Subnet Selection Option for DHCP",
              RFC 3011, November 2000.

   [RFC3046]  Patrick, M., "DHCP Relay Agent Information Option",
              RFC 3046, January 2001.

   [RFC3118]  Droms, R. and W. Arbaugh, "Authentication for DHCP
              Messages", RFC 3118, June 2001.

   [RFC3315]  Droms, R., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins, C.,
              and M. Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for
              IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, July 2003.

   [RFC3319]  Schulzrinne, H. and B. Volz, "Dynamic Host Configuration
              Protocol (DHCPv6) Options for Session Initiation Protocol
              (SIP) Servers", RFC 3319, July 2003.

   [RFC3397]  Aboba, B. and S. Cheshire, "Dynamic Host Configuration
              Protocol (DHCP) Domain Search Option", RFC 3397,
              November 2002.

Hankins                  Expires March 12, 2009                [Page 14]

Internet-Draft               DHCP Guidelines              September 2008

   [RFC3442]  Lemon, T., Cheshire, S., and B. Volz, "The Classless
              Static Route Option for Dynamic Host Configuration
              Protocol (DHCP) version 4", RFC 3442, December 2002.

   [RFC3495]  Beser, B. and P. Duffy, "Dynamic Host Configuration
              Protocol (DHCP) Option for CableLabs Client
              Configuration", RFC 3495, March 2003.

   [RFC3527]  Kinnear, K., Stapp, M., Johnson, R., and J. Kumarasamy,
              "Link Selection sub-option for the Relay Agent Information
              Option for DHCPv4", RFC 3527, April 2003.

   [RFC3634]  Luehrs, K., Woundy, R., Bevilacqua, J., and N. Davoust,
              "Key Distribution Center (KDC) Server Address Sub-option
              for the Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP)
              CableLabs Client Configuration (CCC) Option", RFC 3634,
              December 2003.

   [RFC3646]  Droms, R., "DNS Configuration options for Dynamic Host
              Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3646,
              December 2003.

   [RFC3898]  Kalusivalingam, V., "Network Information Service (NIS)
              Configuration Options for Dynamic Host Configuration
              Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3898, October 2004.

   [RFC3925]  Littlefield, J., "Vendor-Identifying Vendor Options for
              Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol version 4 (DHCPv4)",
              RFC 3925, October 2004.

   [RFC3942]  Volz, B., "Reclassifying Dynamic Host Configuration
              Protocol version 4 (DHCPv4) Options", RFC 3942,
              November 2004.

   [RFC4030]  Stapp, M. and T. Lemon, "The Authentication Suboption for
              the Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) Relay Agent
              Option", RFC 4030, March 2005.

   [RFC4075]  Kalusivalingam, V., "Simple Network Time Protocol (SNTP)
              Configuration Option for DHCPv6", RFC 4075, May 2005.

   [RFC4174]  Monia, C., Tseng, J., and K. Gibbons, "The IPv4 Dynamic
              Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) Option for the Internet
              Storage Name Service", RFC 4174, September 2005.

   [RFC4280]  Chowdhury, K., Yegani, P., and L. Madour, "Dynamic Host
              Configuration Protocol (DHCP) Options for Broadcast and
              Multicast Control Servers", RFC 4280, November 2005.

Hankins                  Expires March 12, 2009                [Page 15]

Internet-Draft               DHCP Guidelines              September 2008

   [RFC4702]  Stapp, M., Volz, B., and Y. Rekhter, "The Dynamic Host
              Configuration Protocol (DHCP) Client Fully Qualified
              Domain Name (FQDN) Option", RFC 4702, October 2006.

   [RFC4704]  Volz, B., "The Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for
              IPv6 (DHCPv6) Client Fully Qualified Domain Name (FQDN)
              Option", RFC 4704, October 2006.

   [RFC4833]  Lear, E. and P. Eggert, "Timezone Options for DHCP",
              RFC 4833, April 2007.

Author's Address

   David W. Hankins
   Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.
   950 Charter Street
   Redwood City, CA  94063

   Phone: +1 650 423 1307
   Email: David_Hankins@isc.org

Hankins                  Expires March 12, 2009                [Page 16]

Internet-Draft               DHCP Guidelines              September 2008

Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).

   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
   contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
   retain all their rights.

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an

Intellectual Property

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at

Hankins                  Expires March 12, 2009                [Page 17]