idnits 2.17.1 draft-droms-rfc2563-deprecate-00.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Looks like you're using RFC 2026 boilerplate. This must be updated to follow RFC 3978/3979, as updated by RFC 4748. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == No 'Intended status' indicated for this document; assuming Proposed Standard Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack separate sections for Informative/Normative References. All references will be assumed normative when checking for downward references. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the RFC 3978 Section 5.4 Copyright Line does not match the current year == The document seems to lack the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords. (The document does seem to have the reference to RFC 2119 which the ID-Checklist requires). -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- The document date (May 14, 2002) is 8010 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) No issues found here. Summary: 2 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 2 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group R. Droms 3 Internet-Draft Cisco Systems 4 Expires: November 12, 2002 May 14, 2002 6 DHCP Auto-configure Option (Option code 116) Deprecated 7 draft-droms-rfc2563-deprecate-00.txt 9 Status of this Memo 11 This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with 12 all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. 14 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 15 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 16 other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- 17 Drafts. 19 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 20 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 21 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 22 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 24 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 25 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. 27 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 28 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 30 This Internet-Draft will expire on November 12, 2002. 32 Copyright Notice 34 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002). All Rights Reserved. 36 Abstract 38 1. Introduction 40 RFC2563 defines the DHCP Auto-configure option, which controls 41 whether a DHCP client uses address auto-configuration. Because of 42 the potential threat of a denial of service attack, the use of 43 RFC2563 is deprecated. 45 2. Requirements 47 The key words MUST, MUST NOT, REQUIRED, SHALL, SHALL NOT, SHOULD, 48 SHOULD NOT, RECOMMENDED, MAY, and OPTIONAL in this document are to be 49 interpreted as described in RFC2119 [1]. 51 3. Deprecation of DHCP Auto-configure option 53 RFC2563 [2] defines the Auto-configure option (option code 116) for 54 DHCP [3]. This option is sent from a DHCP server to a DHCP client. 55 When the option value is 0, the DHCP client does not perform address 56 autoconfiguration. 58 Because DHCP does not enforce any authentication of servers, a DHCP 59 server can mount a denial of service attack on DHCP clients. A DHCP 60 server on an isolated link with no attached routers can respond to 61 DHCP clients with an Auto-configure option instructing the clients 62 not to use address auto-configuration. Those clients will then not 63 have an IP address and not be able to exchange datagrams with other 64 hosts on the same link. 66 The DHC working group knows of no current or planned implementations 67 of the DHCP Auto-configure option. Representatives from several 68 vendors of DHCP implementations have said that the DHCP Auto- 69 configure option has no known application, presents an opportunity 70 for a denial of service attack and that they will never consider 71 implementing it. 73 4. IANA Considerations 75 IANA is asked to mark the DHCP Auto-configure option (option code 76 116) as "Deprecated" in its reference list of DHCP options. 78 5. Security considerations 80 The DHCP Auto-configure option may be used to moutn a denial of 81 service attack on DHCP clients. The use of the DHCP Auto-configure 82 option is deprecated. 84 6. Acknowledgments 86 Stuart Cheshire, Bernard Aboba and Myron Hattig, among others, have 87 noted the security threat posed by the DHCP Auto-configure option. 89 References 91 [1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement 92 Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 94 [2] Troll, R., "DHCP Option to Disable Stateless Auto-Configuration 95 in IPv4 Clients", RFC 2563, May 1999. 97 [3] Droms, R., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol", RFC 2131, 98 March 1997. 100 Author's Address 102 Ralph Droms 103 Cisco Systems 104 250 Apollo Drive 105 Chelmsford, MA 01824 106 USA 108 Phone: +1 978 497 4733 109 EMail: rdroms@cisco.com 111 Full Copyright Statement 113 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002). All Rights Reserved. 115 This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to 116 others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it 117 or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published 118 and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any 119 kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are 120 included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this 121 document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing 122 the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other 123 Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of 124 developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for 125 copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be 126 followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than 127 English. 129 The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be 130 revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. 132 This document and the information contained herein is provided on an 133 "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING 134 TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING 135 BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION 136 HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF 137 MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 139 Acknowledgement 141 Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the 142 Internet Society.