DHC K. Kinnear
Internet-Draft M. Normoyle
Intended status: Standards Track M. Stapp
Expires: October 25, 2007 Cisco Systems, Inc.
April 23, 2007
DHCPv4 Relay Agent Flags Suboption
draft-ietf-dhc-relay-agent-flags-03.txt
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-
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 Internet-Draft will expire on October 25, 2007.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
Abstract
This memo defines a new suboption of the DHCP relay agent information
option that allows the DHCP relay to specify flags for the forwarded
packet. One flag is defined to indicate whether the DHCP relay
received the packet via a unicast or broadcast packet. This
information may be used by the DHCP server to better serve clients
based on whether their request was originally broadcast or unicast.
Kinnear, et al. Expires October 25, 2007 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Relay Agent Flags Suboption April 2007
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Requirements Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. The Flags Suboption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. DHCP Relay Agent Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. DHCP Server Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 8
Kinnear, et al. Expires October 25, 2007 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Relay Agent Flags Suboption April 2007
1. Introduction
Any time a client's DHCP packet is broadcast, a local DHCP relay will
process its request and forward it on to the DHCP server. When the
DHCP relay performs this function, it can be configured to use the
DHCP relay agent information option to forward additional information
to the DHCP server, which the server may then use to alter its
processing algorithms. Once the lease has been granted, however,
future DHCP DHCPREQUEST/RENEWAL messages are unicast directly to the
DHCP Server. [RFC2131] [RFC2132] [RFC3046]
In general, DHCP servers may also make subtle (and sometimes not so
subtle) changes in their processing algorithms depending on whether
or not the DHCP server received the message as a unicast packet from
the DHCP client directly, a broadcast packet from the DHCP client on
a locally connected network, or a unicast packet from a DHCP Relay
Agent which has forwarded on a packet broadcast from a DHCP client
connected to a network local to the DHCP Relay Agent.
In some situations, DHCP Clients may unicast their DHCPREQUEST/RENEW
packets to the DHCP Relay Agent, which will forward the packet on to
the DHCP server. In these cases, the DHCP server cannot tell whether
the packet was broadcast or unicast by the DHCP client, and so it may
be unable to process the DHCP client packets in the manner that it
would if it knew whether the original DHCP packet was broadcast or
unicast. For example, a server might be willing to NAK a client in
the REBINDING state based on a determination that the client's
address does not match its location in the network, but might not be
willing to do so if the client is in the RENEWING state.
The purpose of the suboption described in this document is to allow
the DHCP relay to specify flags for the forwarded packet. These
flags can be used to describe DHCP client attributes that are useful
to the DHCP server, but can only be detected by the local DHCP relay.
The DHCP server can use the information provided by the DHCP relay to
improve its processing algorithms.
One flag is defined to indicate whether the DHCP relay received the
packet via a unicast or broadcast packet. This allows the DHCP
server to know if a packet forwarded on by a DHCP Relay Agent was
broadcast or unicast to the DHCP Relay Agent.
2. Requirements Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
Kinnear, et al. Expires October 25, 2007 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Relay Agent Flags Suboption April 2007
3. The Flags Suboption
The Flags suboption provides an extensible suboption definition for
several possible flags. The first flag defined is the unicast flag.
The format of the suboption is:
0 1 2
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Code | Length | Flags |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Code The suboption code. (TBD, to be assigned by IANA).
Length The suboption length, 1 octet.
Flags The Relay Agent flags for this forwarded packet.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|U| MBZ |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
U: UNICAST flag
unicast = 1
broadcast = 0
MBZ: MUST BE ZERO (reserved for future use)
4. DHCP Relay Agent Behavior
A DHCP relay agent that claims to conform to this specification MUST
include this suboption in every Relay Agent Information Option
[RFC3046] it adds to a forwarded DHCP request. In this way, the DHCP
server can distinguish a request forwarded from a DHCP relay agent
that does not support the relay-agent-flags suboption from a request
forwarded by a DHCP relay agent that supports the relay-agent-flags
suboption and which received the request that is being forwarded in a
broadcast packet.
To put this another way, A DHCP relay agent which supports the relay-
agent-flags suboption MUST always include it in every relay-agent-
information-option that it inserts into packets which it forwards on
to the DHCP server, whether the packet it is forwarding was received
as a broadcast or as a unicast. This is because the DHCP server will
Kinnear, et al. Expires October 25, 2007 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Relay Agent Flags Suboption April 2007
be dealing with DHCP relay agents that support the relay-agent-flags
suboption as well as DHCP relay agents that do not support the relay-
agent-flags suboption.
5. DHCP Server Behavior
This option provides additional information to the DHCP server. The
DHCP server MAY use this information to make processing decisions
regarding the DHCP Client's packet which it is processing. For
instance, knowledge of the broadcast or unicast reception of a packet
by a DHCP relay agent could be used when making the processing
decisions required to implement Load Balancing [RFC3074]. A load-
balancing server may be willing to respond to a REBINDING client, but
the server cannot determine the client's state without this
additional indication.
The option length is one octet. If the DHCP server receives a relay-
agent-flags suboption that is longer than one octet, it MUST evaluate
the first octet.
Note to implementors: In specifying the behavior of new flags bits in
the future, careful attention must be paid to compatibility with
earlier implementations. If additional flags values are defined in
the future, it will not always be possible to distinguish between
messages from relay agents who understand the new value and set its
value to 'zero', and relay agents who are simply setting a series of
unassigned bits to 'zero'. It would be a mistake to specify
significant behavior changes based on 'zero' values of flags
specified in the future.
6. Security Considerations
Message authentication in DHCP for intradomain use where the out-of-
band exchange of a shared secret is feasible is defined in [RFC3118].
Potential exposures to attack are discussed in section 7 of the DHCP
protocol specification in [RFC2131].
The DHCP Relay Agent option depends on a trusted relationship between
the DHCP relay agent and the server, as described in section 5 of
[RFC3046]. While the introduction of fraudulent relay-agent options
can be prevented by a perimeter defense that blocks these options
unless the relay agent is trusted, a deeper defense using the
authentication option for relay agent options [RFC4030] SHOULD be
deployed as well.
Kinnear, et al. Expires October 25, 2007 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Relay Agent Flags Suboption April 2007
7. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to assign a suboption number for the Flags
Suboption from the DHCP Relay Agent Information Option [RFC3046]
suboption number space.
8. Acknowledgements
Thanks to David Hankins for realizing the problems created by the
server-id-override option draft and for helping us understand the
value of finally solving this problem in a way that has general
applicability.
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[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.
[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.
[RFC4030] Stapp, M. and T. Lemon, "The Authentication Suboption for
the Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) Relay Agent
Option", RFC 4030, March 2005.
9.2. Informative References
[RFC3074] Volz, B., Gonczi, S., Lemon, T., and R. Stevens, "DHC Load
Balancing Algorithm", RFC 3074, February 2001.
Kinnear, et al. Expires October 25, 2007 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Relay Agent Flags Suboption April 2007
Authors' Addresses
Kim Kinnear
Cisco Systems, Inc.
1414 Massachusetts Ave.
Boxborough, MA 01719
US
Phone: +1 978 936 0000
Email: kkinnear@cisco.com
Marie Normoyle
Cisco Systems, Inc.
1414 Massachusetts Ave.
Boxborough, MA 01719
US
Phone: +1 978 936 0000
Email: mnormoyle@cisco.com
Mark Stapp
Cisco Systems, Inc.
1414 Massachusetts Ave.
Boxborough, MA 01719
US
Phone: +1 978 936 0000
Email: mjs@cisco.com
Kinnear, et al. Expires October 25, 2007 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Relay Agent Flags Suboption April 2007
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
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
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM 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.
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
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
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
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
Administrative Support Activity (IASA).
Kinnear, et al. Expires October 25, 2007 [Page 8]
