idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-dhc-relay-id-suboption-01.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** It looks like you're using RFC 3978 boilerplate. You should update this to the boilerplate described in the IETF Trust License Policy document (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info), which is required now. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.1 on line 14. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.5, updated by RFC 4748 on line 266. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 1 on line 277. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 2 on line 284. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 3 on line 290. 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 : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust Copyright Line does not match the current year -- 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 (September 19, 2008) is 5691 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) == Missing Reference: 'TBD' is mentioned on line 186, but not defined ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2434 (Obsoleted by RFC 5226) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 3315 (Obsoleted by RFC 8415) Summary: 3 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 7 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 DHC M. Stapp 3 Internet-Draft Cisco Systems, Inc. 4 Expires: March 23, 2009 September 19, 2008 6 The DHCPv4 Relay Agent Identifier Suboption 7 draft-ietf-dhc-relay-id-suboption-01.txt 9 Status of this Memo 11 By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any 12 applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware 13 have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes 14 aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. 16 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 17 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 18 other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- 19 Drafts. 21 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 22 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 23 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 24 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 26 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 27 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. 29 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 30 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 32 This Internet-Draft will expire on March 23, 2009. 34 Abstract 36 This memo defines a new Relay Agent Identifier suboption for the 37 Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol's (DHCP) Relay Agent Information 38 option. The suboption carries a value that uniquely identifies the 39 relay agent device. The value may be administratively-configured or 40 may be generated by the relay agent. The suboption allows a DHCP 41 relay agent to include the identifier in the DHCP messages it sends. 43 Table of Contents 45 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 46 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 47 3. Example Use-Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 48 3.1. Industrial Ethernet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 49 3.2. Bulk Leasequery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 50 4. Suboption Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 51 5. Relay Identifier Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 52 6. Generating a Relay Identifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 53 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 54 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 55 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 56 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 57 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 58 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 59 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 8 61 1. Introduction 63 The Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv4 (DHCPv4) [RFC2131] 64 provides IP addresses and configuration information for IPv4 clients. 65 It includes a relay agent capability, in which network elements 66 receive broadcast messages from clients and forward them to DHCP 67 servers as unicast messages. In many network environments, relay 68 agents add information to the DHCP messages before forwarding them, 69 using the Relay Agent Information option [RFC3046]. Servers that 70 recognize the relay information option echo it back in their replies. 72 This specification introduces a Relay Agent Identifier suboption for 73 the Relay Information option. The Relay-Id suboption carries an 74 sequence of octets that is intended to identify the relay agent 75 uniquely within the administrative domain. The identifier may be 76 administratively configured: in some networks it may be adequate to 77 assign ASCII strings such as "switch1" and "switch2". Alternatively, 78 the identifier may be generated by the relay agent itself, and we 79 specify use of [RFC3315] DUIDs for this purpose. 81 2. Terminology 83 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 84 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 85 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 87 DHCPv4 terminology is defined in [RFC2131], and the DHCPv4 Relay 88 Agent Information Option in [RFC3046]. DUID terminology is in 89 [RFC3315]. 91 3. Example Use-Cases 93 3.1. Industrial Ethernet 95 DHCP typically identifies clients based on information in their DHCP 96 messages - such as the Client-Identifier option, or the value of the 97 chaddr field. In some networks, however, the location of a client - 98 its point of attachment to the network - is a more useful identifier. 99 In factory-floor networks (commonly called 'Industrial' networks), 100 for example, the role a device plays is often fixed and based on its 101 location. Using manual address configuration is possible (and is 102 common) but it would be beneficial if DHCP configuration could be 103 applied to these networks. 105 One way to provide connection-based identifiers for industrial 106 networks is to have the network elements acting as DHCP relay agents 107 supply information that a DHCP server could use as a client 108 identifier. A straightforward way to form identifier information is 109 to combine something that is unique within the scope of the network 110 element, such as a port/slot value, with something that uniquely 111 identifies that network element, such as a unique identifier. 113 3.2. Bulk Leasequery 115 There has been quite a bit of recent interest in extending the DHCP 116 Leasequery protocol [RFC4388] to accomodate some additional 117 situations. There are two recent drafts ([draft-kinnear] and 118 [draft-dtv]) proposing a variety of enhancements to the existing 119 Leasequery protocol. Both describe cases where identifying the DHCP 120 relay agent would be helpful in restoring binding information 121 associated with the client downstream from the device acting as a 122 relay. 124 4. Suboption Format 126 Format of the Relay Agent Identifier suboption: 128 0 1 2 3 129 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 130 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 131 |SUBOPT_RELAY_ID| length | type | | 132 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | 133 . . 134 . identifier (variable) . 135 . . 136 +---------------------------------------------------------------+ 138 Where: 140 SUBOPT_RELAY_ID [TBD] 142 length the number of octets in the suboption; the 143 minimum length is one. 145 type a single octet describing the type of 146 identifier that is present. 148 identifier the identifying data. 150 5. Relay Identifier Types 152 For clarity, the suboption specified here includes a type octet that 153 describes the data used in the identifier field. The type value zero 154 is reserved and MUST NOT be used. Two type values are defined here: 155 RELAY_IDENTIFIER_DUID and RELAY_IDENTIFIER_ASCII. 156 RELAY_IDENTIFIER_DUID is used when the identifier field contains an 157 [RFC3315] DUID. Administrators may want to assign human-friendly 158 ASCII identifiers: RELAY_IDENTIFIER_ASCII is used when the identifier 159 field contains an ASCII string. 161 6. Generating a Relay Identifier 163 As described in Section 1, in some situations it may be useful for 164 network devices to generate identifiers themselves. Relay agents who 165 send the Relay Agent Identifier suboption using identifiers that are 166 not administratively-configured MUST be generated following the 167 procedures in the DUID section of [RFC3315]. Relay agents who use 168 generated identifiers SHOULD make the generated value visible to 169 their administrators via their user-interface, through a log entry, 170 or through some other mechanism. 172 7. Security Considerations 174 Security issues with the Relay Agent Information option and its use 175 by servers in address assignment are discussed in [RFC3046] and 176 [RFC4030]. Relay agents who send the Relay Agent Identifier 177 suboption SHOULD use the Relay Agent Authentication suboption 178 [RFC4030] to provide integrity protection. 180 8. IANA Considerations 182 We request that IANA assign a new suboption code from the registry of 183 DHCP Agent Sub-Option Codes maintained in 184 http://www.iana.org/assignments/bootp-dhcp-parameters. 186 Relay Agent Identifier Suboption [TBD] 188 We request that IANA establish a new registry of DHCP Relay Agent 189 Identifier Sub-Option Types, to be maintained in 190 http://www.iana.org/assignments/bootp-dhcp-parameters. The 191 Identifier Type is a single octet. The initial values assigned in 192 this document are: 194 RELAY_IDENTIFIER_NULL 0 195 RELAY_IDENTIFIER_DUID 1 196 RELAY_IDENTIFIER_ASCII 2 198 Additional Identifier Type values will be allocated and assigned 199 through IETF consensus, as defined in [RFC2434]. 201 9. References 203 9.1. Normative References 205 [RFC2131] Droms, R., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol", 206 RFC 2131, March 1997. 208 [RFC2434] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an 209 IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434, 210 October 1998. 212 [RFC3046] Patrick, M., "DHCP Relay Agent Information Option", 213 RFC 3046, January 2001. 215 [RFC3315] Droms, R., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins, C., 216 and M. Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for 217 IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, July 2003. 219 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 220 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 222 [RFC4030] Stapp, M. and T. Lemon, "The Authentication Suboption for 223 the Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) Relay Agent 224 Option", RFC 4030, March 2005. 226 9.2. Informative References 228 [RFC4388] Woundy, R. and K. Kinnear, "Dynamic Host Configuration 229 Protocol (DHCP) Leasequery", RFC 4388, February 2006. 231 [draft-kinnear] 232 Kinnear, K., Volz, B., Russell, N., and M. Stapp, "Bulk 233 DHCPv4 Lease Query 234 (draft-kinnear-dhc-dhcpv4-bulk-leasequery-*)", July 2008. 236 [draft-dtv] 237 Rao, D., Joshi, B., and P. Kurapati, "DHCPv4 bulk lease 238 query (draft-dtv-dhc-dhcpv4-bulk-leasequery-*)", 239 July 2008. 241 Author's Address 243 Mark Stapp 244 Cisco Systems, Inc. 245 1414 Massachusetts Ave. 246 Boxborough, MA 01719 247 USA 249 Phone: +1 978 936 0000 250 Email: mjs@cisco.com 252 Full Copyright Statement 254 Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008). 256 This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions 257 contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors 258 retain all their rights. 260 This document and the information contained herein are provided on an 261 "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS 262 OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND 263 THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS 264 OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF 265 THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED 266 WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 268 Intellectual Property 270 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any 271 Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to 272 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in 273 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights 274 might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has 275 made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information 276 on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be 277 found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. 279 Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any 280 assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an 281 attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of 282 such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this 283 specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at 284 http://www.ietf.org/ipr. 286 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any 287 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary 288 rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement 289 this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at 290 ietf-ipr@ietf.org.