• Aucun résultat trouvé

by addressing the issues arising from that document’s specification that the server MUST NOT return the ’client identifier’ option to the client


Academic year: 2022

Partager "by addressing the issues arising from that document’s specification that the server MUST NOT return the ’client identifier’ option to the client"

En savoir plus ( Page)

Texte intégral


Updates: 2131 G. Halwasia Category: Standards Track P. Jhingran ISSN: 2070-1721 Cisco Systems January 2013

Client Identifier Option in DHCP Server Replies Abstract

This document updates RFC 2131 "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol"

by addressing the issues arising from that document’s specification that the server MUST NOT return the ’client identifier’ option to the client.

Status of This Memo

This is an Internet Standards Track document.

This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has received public review and has been approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.

Information about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at


Copyright Notice

Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.

This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust’s Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents

(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents

carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.


Table of Contents

1. Introduction ...2

1.1. Requirements Language ...2

2. Problem Statement ...2

3. Modification to RFC 2131 ...3

4. Security Considerations ...4

5. Acknowledgments ...4

6. Normative References ...4 1. Introduction

The Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) defined in [RFC2131]

provides configuration parameters to hosts on an IP-based network.

DHCP is built on a client-server model, where designated DHCP servers allocate network addresses and deliver configuration parameters to dynamically configured hosts.

The changes to [RFC2131] defined in this document clarify the use of the ’client identifier’ option by the DHCP servers. The

clarification addresses the issues (as mentioned in Problem

Statement) arising out of the point specified by [RFC2131] that the server MUST NOT return the ’client identifier’ option to the client.

1.1. Requirements Language

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].

2. Problem Statement

[RFC2131] specifies that a combination of ’client identifier’ or ’chaddr’ and assigned network address constitute a unique identifier for the client’s lease and are used by both the client and server to identify a lease referred in any DHCP messages. [RFC2131] also specifies that the server MUST NOT return the ’client identifier’

option in DHCPOFFER and DHCPACK messages. Furthermore, DHCP relay agents and servers implementing [RFC2131] MAY drop the DHCP packets in the absence of both the ’client identifier’ and ’chaddr’ option.

In some cases, a client may not have a valid hardware address to populate the ’chaddr’ field and may set the field to all zeroes. One such example is when DHCP is used to assign an IP address to a mobile phone or a tablet and where the ’chaddr’ field is set to zero in DHCP request packets. In such cases, the client usually sets the ’client


identifier’ option field (to a value as permitted in [RFC2131]), and both the client and server use this field to uniquely identify the client with in a subnet.

Note that due to aforementioned recommendations in [RFC2131], valid downstream DHCP packets (DHCPOFFER, DHCPACK, and DHCPNAK) from the server MAY get dropped at the DHCP relay agent in the absence of the ’client identifier’ option when the ’chaddr’ field is set to zero.

The problem may get aggravated when a client receives a response from the server without ’client identifier’ and with the ’chaddr’ value set to zero, as it cannot guarantee that the response is intended for it. This is due to the fact that even though the ’xid’ field is present to map responses with requests, this field alone cannot guarantee that a particular response is for a particular client, as ’xid’ values generated by multiple clients within a subnet need not be unique.

Lack of the ’client identifier’ option in DHCP reply messages also affects the scenario where multiple DHCP clients may be running on the same host sharing the same ’chaddr’.

This document attempts to address these problems faced by the DHCP relay agent and client by proposing modification to DHCP server behavior. The solution specified in this document is in line with DHCPv6 [RFC3315] where the server always includes the Client

Identifier option in the Reply messages.

The requirement for DHCP servers not to return the ’client

identifier’ option was made purely to conserve the limited space in the packet. It is possible, though unlikely, that clients will drop packets that contain this formerly unexpected option. There are no known client implementations that will drop packets, but the benefit provided by this change outweighs any small risk of such behavior.

More harm is being done by not having the ’client identifier’ option present than might be done by adding it now.

3. Modification to RFC 2131

If the ’client identifier’ option is present in a message received from a client, the server MUST return the ’client identifier’ option, unaltered, in its response message.

The following table is extracted from Section 4.3.1 of [RFC2131] and relevant fields are modified accordingly to overcome the problems mentioned in this document.


Option DHCPOFFER DHCPACK DHCPNAK --- --- --- --- Client identifier (if MUST MUST MUST sent by client)

Client identifier (if MUST NOT MUST NOT MUST NOT not sent by client)

When a client receives a DHCP message containing a ’client

identifier’ option, the client MUST compare that client identifier to the one it is configured to send. If the two client identifiers do not match, the client MUST silently discard the message.

4. Security Considerations

This specification does not add any new security considerations other than the ones already mentioned in [RFC2131]. It is worth noting that DHCP clients routinely connect to different IP networks managed by different network providers. DHCP clients have no a priori

knowledge of which network they are connecting to. Consequently, the client identifier will, by definition, be routinely shared with

network operators and could be used in ways that violate the user’s privacy. This is a problem that existed in [RFC2131]. This document does nothing to address this problem.

5. Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Bernie Volz, Ted Lemon, Barr Hibbs, Richard Johnson, Barry Leiba, Stephen Farrell, and Adrian Farrel for insightful discussions and review.

6. 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.

[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.


Authors’ Addresses

Narasimha Swamy Nelakuditi Samsung India

Block-B, Bagmane Lakeview, 66/1, Bagmane Tech Park,

Byrasandra, C.V. Raman Nagar, Bangalore, 560093 India

Phone: +91 80 4181 9999 EMail: nn.swamy@samsung.com

Gaurav Halwasia Cisco Systems

SEZ Unit, Cessna Business Park Sarjapur Marathalli Outer Ring Road Bangalore, 560103


Phone: +91 80 4426 1321 EMail: ghalwasi@cisco.com

Prashant Jhingran Cisco Systems

SEZ Unit, Cessna Business Park Sarjapur Marathalli Outer Ring Road Bangalore, 560103


Phone: +91 80 4426 1800 EMail: pjhingra@cisco.com


Documents relatifs

A new connection is used for each transfer; to avoid running afoul of TCP’s TIMEWAIT state, the client picks a new port number each time and sends a PORT command announcing

A second way of finding the correct server to query is to use a separate service we call the Directory of Servers. The Directory of Servers is a special Whois++ server which

If the destination given by <target> is an actual server, the destination server is REQUIRED to report all servers, services and operators which are connected to it; if

Similarly, Access-Challenge packets containing an EAP-Message attribute sent from the RADIUS server to the NAS are also authenticated and integrity protected using an

PacketCable Security Ticket Control Sub-Option for the DHCP CableLabs Client Configuration (CCC) Option.. Status of

When the DHCP server receives a message from a relay agent containing a RADIUS Attributes suboption, it extracts the contents of the suboption and uses that information

The receiver MUST support a configuration that allows it to drop incoming messages that do not contain a valid relay agent information option and..

This document specifies a Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCPv4 and DHCPv6) option containing the civic location of the client or the DHCP server.. The

A relay agent MAY include an Echo Request option in a Relay Forward message to inform the server about options the relay agent wants the server to echo back to the relay

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

DHCP servers that implement this Relay Agent Information suboption MUST use this value, if present in a DHCP message received from a client, as the value to insert into the

Note that the length field in the DHCPv4 option represents the length of the entire domain name encoding, whereas the length fields in the domain name encoding (see Section 3)

Using server-to-server notifications, the mail system can provide the end user with a unified notification experience (the same look and feel for accounts at all

The extensions are designed to be backwards compatible, meaning that the handshake protocol supplemental data messages will only contain authorization information of a particular

In most scenarios, at least one of these credentials will be issued to the public key of the transmitter of the credentials, i.e., said public key will appear in

This document specifies rules for server signature algorithm selection and an extension that allows a client to advise a server that specific signature algorithms are

In order to supply options for the DHCP server to send to the client, the relay agent sends an RSOO in the Relay-Forward message...

A DHCP client indicates DHCP Forcerenew Nonce Protocol capability by including a FORCERENEW_NONCE_CAPABLE (145) option in DHCP Discover and Request messages sent to the server..

An authorization server MUST consider the full registration request, including the software statement, initial access token, and JSON client metadata values, when

The Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) [RFC7252] response codes are used by a CoAP server to indicate the result of an attempt to understand and satisfy a request sent by

Last year at this time the government brought down a budget which forecast an Ordinary Account surplus of $32.4 million, an increase in the net debt of $68.6 million and

Dr Fortin thanks the patients and co-investigators of the Saguenay group associated with the Research Chair on Chronic Diseases in Primary Care.. Competing interests None

R6 receives a DHCP DISCOVER packet from the relay IP address (R5) with the Client-ID is based on the MAC address of SW2’s VLAN 58 interface.. SW2 requests the IP address using