RE: [dhcwg] New draft for leasequery extension

["pavan_kurapati" <pavan_kurapati at infosys.com>]

Bharat Joshi wrote:
>
>>>> Also, does this also mean that DHCP servers MUST NOT send this option
>>>> back to "normal" DHCP clients?  Because if it does, how will the Access
>>>> Concentrator be able to distinguish between this option is the one that
>>>> was reflected back to the AC, vs. this option is the data that is being
>>>> returned as LeaseQuery data?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>   
>>>>       
>>> Actually clients are not supposed to add this option at all. We can add
>>> a statement saying that "L2 relay agent must treat all its subscriber
>>> ports as untrusted entities. A DHCP packet coming from an untrusted
>>> entity with access-concentrator-hw-addr added MUST be silently
>>> discarded. If L2 relay agent is located farther to Access Node, access
>>> node must not act as a relay agent for that line".
>>> 
>>>     
>> Client->Server isn't the issue.   It's Server->Client where the problem
>> is initiated.  If the DHCP server is configured to send this option back
>> to the client (and thus it becomes part of the lease data), then it
>> would be inaccessable from a Leasequery point of view (much the same way
>> as if in normal Leasequery, the querier were to add in option 82 in the
>> query.  The DHCP server has to deal with the conflicting requirement of
>> reflecting the option 82 back, as well as attempting to put in the
>> option 82 that was originally sent by the client).
>>
>>   
>
>> I am not sure if I got this correctly. Our document does not mention
> >that DHCP server should store this option and send this option back in
> >the DHCP replies of normal DHCP packets to a client.
> 

>Upon a closer reading, the draft does seem to only mention Leasequery
>messages.  However, since this option does require special behaviour on
>the server (for at least one message), then I think it would be a good
>idea to mention any special behaviours (or even if there is no special
>behaviour) for the remaining messages that the server may receive.
>Otherwise we may end up leaving a loophole in the specification where
>some servers could do one thing with the option, and other servers do
>something different.

Yes. We will take care of this  in the next version by explicitly mentioning about the Server behavior in non-leasequery messages for this option.

Thanks,
Pavan


**************** CAUTION - Disclaimer *****************
This e-mail contains PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION intended solely for the use of the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by e-mail and delete the original message. Further, you are not to copy, disclose, or distribute this e-mail or its contents to any other person and any such actions are unlawful. This e-mail may contain viruses. Infosys has taken every reasonable precaution to minimize this risk, but is not liable for any damage you may sustain as a result of any virus in this e-mail. You should carry out your own virus checks before opening the e-mail or attachment. Infosys reserves the right to monitor and review the content of all messages sent to or from this e-mail address. Messages sent to or from this e-mail address may be stored on the Infosys e-mail system.
***INFOSYS******** End of Disclaimer ********INFOSYS***

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg