The Classless Static Route Option for Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) version 4
RFC 3442

Network Working Group                                           T. Lemon
Request for Comments: 3442                                 Nominum, Inc.
Updates: 2132                                                S. Cheshire
Category: Standards Track                           Apple Computer, Inc.
                                                                 B. Volz
                                                                Ericsson
                                                           December 2002

                 The Classless Static Route Option for
          Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) version 4

Status of this Memo

   This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
   Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
   improvements.  Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
   Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
   and status of this protocol.  Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002).  All Rights Reserved.

Abstract

   This document defines a new Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
   (DHCP) option which is passed from the DHCP Server to the DHCP Client
   to configure a list of static routes in the client.  The network
   destinations in these routes are classless - each routing table entry
   includes a subnet mask.

Introduction

   This option obsoletes the Static Route option (option 33) defined in
   RFC 2132 [4].

   The IP protocol [1] uses routers to transmit packets from hosts
   connected to one IP subnet to hosts connected to a different IP
   subnet.  When an IP host (the source host) wishes to transmit a
   packet to another IP host (the destination), it consults its routing
   table to determine the IP address of the router that should be used
   to forward the packet to the destination host.

   The routing table on an IP host can be maintained in a variety of
   ways - using a routing information protocol such as RIP [8], ICMP
   router discovery [6,9] or using the DHCP Router option, defined in
   RFC 2132 [4].

Lemon, et. al.              Standards Track                     [Page 1]
RFC 3442        Classless Static Route Option for DHCPv4   December 2002

   In a network that already provides DHCP service, using DHCP to update
   the routing table on a DHCP client has several virtues.  It is
   efficient, since it makes use of messages that would have been sent
   anyway.  It is convenient - the DHCP server configuration is already
   being maintained, so maintaining routing information, at least on a
   relatively stable network, requires little extra work.  If DHCP
   service is already in use, no additional infrastructure need be
   deployed.

   The DHCP protocol as defined in RFC 2131 [3] and the options defined
   in RFC 2132 [4] only provide a mechanism for installing a default
   route or installing a table of classful routes.  Classful routes are
   routes whose subnet mask is implicit in the subnet number - see
   section 3.2 of STD 5, RFC 791 [1] for details on classful routing.

   Classful routing is no longer in common use, so the DHCP Static Route
   option is no longer useful.  Currently, classless routing [7, 10] is
   the most commonly-deployed form of routing on the Internet.  In
   classless routing, IP addresses consist of a network number (the
   combination of the network number and subnet number described in RFC
   950 [7]) and a host number.

   In classful IP, the network number and host number are derived from
   the IP address using a bitmask whose value is determined by the first
   few bits of the IP address.  In classless IP, the network number and
   host number are derived from the IP address using a separate
   quantity, the subnet mask.  In order to determine the network to
   which a given route applies, an IP host must know both the network
   number AND the subnet mask for that network.

   The Static Routes option (option 33) does not provide a subnet mask
   for each route - it is assumed that the subnet mask is implicit in
   whatever network number is specified in each route entry.  The
   Classless Static Routes option does provide a subnet mask for each
   entry, so that the subnet mask can be other than what would be
   determined using the algorithm specified in STD 5, RFC 791 [1] and
   STD 5, RFC 950 [7].

Definitions

   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 BCP 14, RFC 2119 [2].

Lemon, et. al.              Standards Track                     [Page 2]
RFC 3442        Classless Static Route Option for DHCPv4   December 2002

   This document also uses the following terms:

      "DHCP client"

         DHCP client or "client" is an Internet host using DHCP to
         obtain configuration parameters such as a network address.

      "DHCP server"

         A DHCP server or "server" is an Internet host that returns
         configuration parameters to DHCP clients.

      "link"

         Any set of network attachment points that will all receive a
         link-layer broadcast sent on any one of the attachment points.
         This term is used in DHCP because in some cases more than one
         IP subnet may be configured on a link.  DHCP uses a local-
         network (all-ones) broadcast, which is not subnet-specific, and
         will therefore reach all nodes connected to the link,
         regardless of the IP subnet or subnets on which they are
         configured.

         A "link" is sometimes referred to as a broadcast domain or
         physical network segment.

Classless Route Option Format

   The code for this option is 121, and its minimum length is 5 bytes.
   This option can contain one or more static routes, each of which
   consists of a destination descriptor and the IP address of the router
   that should be used to reach that destination.

    Code Len Destination 1    Router 1
   +-----+---+----+-----+----+----+----+----+----+
   | 121 | n | d1 | ... | dN | r1 | r2 | r3 | r4 |
   +-----+---+----+-----+----+----+----+----+----+

    Destination 2       Router 2
   +----+-----+----+----+----+----+----+
   | d1 | ... | dN | r1 | r2 | r3 | r4 |
   +----+-----+----+----+----+----+----+

   In the above example, two static routes are specified.

Lemon, et. al.              Standards Track                     [Page 3]
RFC 3442        Classless Static Route Option for DHCPv4   December 2002

   Destination descriptors describe the IP subnet number and subnet mask
   of a particular destination using a compact encoding.  This encoding
   consists of one octet describing the width of the subnet mask,
   followed by all the significant octets of the subnet number.

   The width of the subnet mask describes the number of one bits in the
   mask, so for example a subnet with a subnet number of 10.0.127.0 and
   a netmask of 255.255.255.0 would have a subnet mask width of 24.

   The significant portion of the subnet number is simply all of the
   octets of the subnet number where the corresponding octet in the
   subnet mask is non-zero.  The number of significant octets is the
   width of the subnet mask divided by eight, rounding up, as shown in
   the following table:

        Width of subnet mask     Number of significant octets
                     0                     0
                  1- 8                     1
                  9-16                     2
                 17-24                     3
                 25-32                     4

   The following table contains some examples of how various subnet
   number/mask combinations can be encoded:

   Subnet number   Subnet mask      Destination descriptor
   0               0                0
   10.0.0.0        255.0.0.0        8.10
   10.0.0.0        255.255.255.0    24.10.0.0
   10.17.0.0       255.255.0.0      16.10.17
   10.27.129.0     255.255.255.0    24.10.27.129
   10.229.0.128    255.255.255.128  25.10.229.0.128
   10.198.122.47   255.255.255.255  32.10.198.122.47

Local Subnet Routes

   In some cases more than one IP subnet may be configured on a link.
   In such cases, a host whose IP address is in one IP subnet in the
   link could communicate directly with a host whose IP address is in a
   different IP subnet on the same link.  In cases where a client is
   being assigned an IP address on an IP subnet on such a link, for each
   IP subnet in the link other than the IP subnet on which the client
   has been assigned the DHCP server MAY be configured to specify a
   router IP address of 0.0.0.0.

Lemon, et. al.              Standards Track                     [Page 4]
RFC 3442        Classless Static Route Option for DHCPv4   December 2002

   For example, consider the case where there are three IP subnets
   configured on a link: 10.0.0/24, 192.168.0/24, 10.0.21/24.  If the
   client is assigned an IP address of 10.0.21.17, then the server could
   include a route with a destination of 10.0.0/24 and a router address
   of 0.0.0.0, and also a route with a destination of 192.168.0/24 and a
   router address of 0.0.0.0.

   A DHCP client whose underlying TCP/IP stack does not provide this
   capability MUST ignore routes in the Classless Static Routes option
   whose router IP address is 0.0.0.0.  Please note that the behavior
   described here only applies to the Classless Static Routes option,
   not to the Static Routes option nor the Router option.

DHCP Client Behavior

   DHCP clients that do not support this option MUST ignore it if it is
   received from a DHCP server.  DHCP clients that support this option
   MUST install the routes specified in the option, except as specified
   in the Local Subnet Routes section.  DHCP clients that support this
   option MUST NOT install the routes specified in the Static Routes
   option (option code 33) if both a Static Routes option and the
   Classless Static Routes option are provided.

   DHCP clients that support this option and that send a DHCP Parameter
   Request List option MUST request both this option and the Router
   option [4] in the DHCP Parameter Request List.

   DHCP clients that support this option and send a parameter request
   list MAY also request the Static Routes option, for compatibility
   with older servers that don't support Classless Static Routes.  The
   Classless Static Routes option code MUST appear in the parameter
   request list prior to both the Router option code and the Static
   Routes option code, if present.

   If the DHCP server returns both a Classless Static Routes option and
   a Router option, the DHCP client MUST ignore the Router option.

   Similarly, if the DHCP server returns both a Classless Static Routes
   option and a Static Routes option, the DHCP client MUST ignore the
   Static Routes option.

   After deriving a subnet number and subnet mask from each destination
   descriptor, the DHCP client MUST zero any bits in the subnet number
   where the corresponding bit in the mask is zero. In other words, the
   subnet number installed in the routing table is the logical AND of
   the subnet number and subnet mask given in the Classless Static
   Routes option. For example, if the server sends a route with a
   destination of 129.210.177.132 (hexadecimal 81D4B184) and a subnet

Lemon, et. al.              Standards Track                     [Page 5]
RFC 3442        Classless Static Route Option for DHCPv4   December 2002

   mask of 255.255.255.128 (hexadecimal FFFFFF80), the client will
   install a route with a destination of 129.210.177.128 (hexadecimal
   81D4B180).

Requirements to Avoid Sizing Constraints

   Because a full routing table can be quite large, the standard 576
   octet maximum size for a DHCP message may be too short to contain
   some legitimate Classless Static Route options.  Because of this,
   clients implementing the Classless Static Route option SHOULD send a
   Maximum DHCP Message Size [4] option if the DHCP client's TCP/IP
   stack is capable of receiving larger IP datagrams.  In this case, the
   client SHOULD set the value of this option to at least the MTU of the
   interface that the client is configuring.  The client MAY set the
   value of this option higher, up to the size of the largest UDP packet
   it is prepared to accept.  (Note that the value specified in the
   Maximum DHCP Message Size option is the total maximum packet size,
   including IP and UDP headers.)

   DHCP clients requesting this option, and DHCP servers sending this
   option, MUST implement DHCP option concatenation [5].  In the
   terminology of RFC 3396 [5], the Classless Static Route Option is a
   concatenation-requiring option.

DHCP Server Administrator Responsibilities

   Many clients may not implement the Classless Static Routes option.
   DHCP server administrators should therefore configure their DHCP
   servers to send both a Router option and a Classless Static Routes
   option, and should specify the default router(s) both in the Router
   option and in the Classless Static Routes option.

   When a DHCP client requests the Classless Static Routes option and
   also requests either or both of the Router option and the Static
   Routes option, and the DHCP server is sending Classless Static Routes
   options to that client, the server SHOULD NOT include the Router or
   Static Routes options.

Security Considerations

   Potential exposures to attack in the DHCP protocol are discussed in
   section 7 of the DHCP protocol specification [3] and in
   Authentication for DHCP Messages [11].

   The Classless Static Routes option can be used to misdirect network
   traffic by providing incorrect IP addresses for routers.  This can be
   either a Denial of Service attack, where the router IP address given
   is simply invalid, or can be used to set up a man-in-the-middle

Lemon, et. al.              Standards Track                     [Page 6]
RFC 3442        Classless Static Route Option for DHCPv4   December 2002

   attack by providing the IP address of a potential snooper.  This is
   not a new problem - the existing Router and Static Routes options
   defined in RFC 2132 [4] exhibit the same vulnerability.

IANA Considerations

   This DHCP option has been allocated the option code 121 in the list
   of DHCP option codes that the IANA maintains.

Normative References

   [1]  Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791, September 1981.

   [2]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
        Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

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

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

   [5]  Lemon, T. and S. Cheshire, "Encoding Long Options in the Dynamic
        Host Configuration Protocol (DHCPv4)", RFC 3396, November 2002.

Informative References

   [6]  Postel, J., "Internet Control Message Protocol", STD 5, RFC 792,
        September 1981.

   [7]  Mogul, J. and J. Postel, "Internet Standard Subnetting
        Procedure", STD 5, RFC 950, August 1985.

   [8]  Hedrick, C., "Routing Information Protocol", RFC 1058, June
        1988.

   [9]  Deering, S., "ICMP Router Discovery Messages", RFC 1256,
        September 1991.

   [10] Pummill, T. and B. Manning, "Variable Length Subnet Table For
        IPv4", RFC 1878, December 1995.

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

Lemon, et. al.              Standards Track                     [Page 7]
RFC 3442        Classless Static Route Option for DHCPv4   December 2002

Intellectual Property Statement

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   intellectual property 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; neither does it represent that it
   has made any effort to identify any such rights.  Information on the
   IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and
   standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11.  Copies of
   claims of rights made available for publication 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 implementors or users of this specification can
   be obtained from the IETF Secretariat.

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

Authors' Addresses

   Ted Lemon
   Nominum, Inc.
   2385 Bay Road
   Redwood City, CA 94063

   EMail: Ted.Lemon@nominum.com

   Stuart Cheshire
   Apple Computer, Inc.
   1 Infinite Loop
   Cupertino
   California 95014
   USA

   Phone: +1 408 974 3207
   EMail: rfc@stuartcheshire.org

   Bernie Volz
   Ericsson
   959 Concord Street
   Framingham, MA, 01701

   Phone: +1 508 875 3162
   EMail: bernie.volz@ericsson.com

Lemon, et. al.              Standards Track                     [Page 8]
RFC 3442        Classless Static Route Option for DHCPv4   December 2002

Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002).  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
   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.

Acknowledgement

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
   Internet Society.

Lemon, et. al.              Standards Track                     [Page 9]