idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-dhc-userclass-05.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Cannot find the required boilerplate sections (Copyright, IPR, etc.) in this document. Expected boilerplate is as follows today (2024-04-19) according to https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info : IETF Trust Legal Provisions of 28-dec-2009, Section 6.a: This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. IETF Trust Legal Provisions of 28-dec-2009, Section 6.b(i), paragraph 2: Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. IETF Trust Legal Provisions of 28-dec-2009, Section 6.b(i), paragraph 3: This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://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. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack a 1id_guidelines paragraph about 6 months document validity -- however, there's a paragraph with a matching beginning. Boilerplate error? == No 'Intended status' indicated for this document; assuming Proposed Standard == The page length should not exceed 58 lines per page, but there was 1 longer page, the longest (page 1) being 240 lines Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack an IANA Considerations section. (See Section 2.2 of https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist for how to handle the case when there are no actions for IANA.) ** 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 document seems to lack the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords -- however, there's a paragraph with a matching beginning. Boilerplate error? (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.) -- Couldn't find a document date in the document -- date freshness check skipped. 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: 4 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 2 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Internet Engineering Task Force Glenn Stump, IBM 2 INTERNET DRAFT Ralph Droms, Bucknell University 3 Date: February 2000 Ye Gu, Ramesh Vyaghrapuri, 4 Expires: July 2000 Ann Demirtjis, Microsoft 5 Burcak Beser, 3Com 6 Jerome Privat, BT 8 The User Class Option for DHCP 9 11 Status of this Memo 13 The document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with all 14 of the provisions of Section 10 of RFC 2026. 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 19 Internet-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 Intenet-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 Abstract 34 This option is used by a DHCP client to optionally identify the 35 type or category of user or applications it represents. The 36 information contained in this option is an opaque field 37 that represents the user class of which the client is a member. 38 Based on this class, a DHCP server selects the appropriate address 39 pool to assign an address to the client and the appropriate 40 configuration parameters. 41 This option should be configurable by a user. 43 1. Introduction 45 It is often desirable to provide different levels of service 46 to different users of an IP network. 47 In order for an IP network to implement this service 48 differentiation, it needs a way to classify users. A simple 49 solution to this is to use source IP addresses for classification. 50 Under this scheme, network administrators first configure network 51 devices such as routers to recognize traffic from a particular 52 source IP address (or address range) and handle it specially to 53 meet the desired level of service. Next, they assign the IP 54 addresses to the hosts of the intended users so that the user will 55 receive the appropriate level of service. They can configure the 56 hosts manually with these addresses. However, they cannot use DHCP 57 for address assignment, even if they are already running a DHCP 58 server in their network. A current RFC-compliant DHCP server assigns 59 IP addresses based on the location of the DHCP Client in the network 60 topology, not the type of user it supports. 61 This document describes a simple extension of the DHCP protocol 62 that enables a DHCP server to assign IP addresses from different 63 address pools depending on the type of users from which it receives 64 DHCP requests. With this new extension, network administrators will 65 be able to use DHCP to hand out the appropriate addresses to clients. 66 An example intended usage is a corporate network subnet consisting 67 of different departments of users, such as Accounting, Legal, Staff, 68 etc. It may be desirable to allocate logical address pools to each 69 of the departments so that network policies may be implemented easily 70 on IP address ranges; and this would facilitate providing 71 differential services, such as network reachibility. 72 A DHCP server can also use the information contained in the User 73 Class to allocate other configuration parameters than the IP 74 address. For example, a DHCP server receiving a request from a 75 client with the User Class set to "accounting auditors" may return 76 an option with the address of a particular database server. 77 Indeed a DHCP server may have a single pool of addresses and 78 only use the user class to select parameters other than IP 79 addresses. 81 Note: 82 This document combines ideas from draft-ietf-dhc-userclass-03.txt 83 and draft-ietf-dhc-useraddr-00.txt. It has been published as a 84 revision to draft-ietf-dhc-userclass-03.txt. 86 2. Requirements Terminology 88 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 89 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY" and "OPTIONAL" in this 90 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [3]. 92 3. DHCP Terminology 94 o "DHCP client" 96 A DHCP client or "client" is an Internet host using DHCP to obtain 97 configuration parameters such as a network address. 99 o "DHCP server" 101 A DHCP server of "server"is an Internet host that returns 102 configuration parameters to DHCP clients. 104 o "binding" 106 A binding is a collection of configuration parameters, including 107 at least an IP address, associated with or "bound to" a DHCP 108 client. Bindings are managed by DHCP servers. 110 4. User Class option 112 This option is used by a DHCP client to optionally identify the 113 type or category of user or applications it represents. 114 A DHCP server uses the User Class option to choose the address 115 pool it allocates an address from and/or to select any other 116 configuration option. 118 This option is a DHCP option [1, 2]. 120 This option MAY carry multiple User Classes. 122 The code for this option is TBD. 123 Each User Class value is indicated in an opaque field and is 124 preceded by a one-byte field giving its length. 125 If i is the number of User Classes carried in the option, 126 its total length N is equal to i + sum(Li). 128 Code Len Len1 Len2 129 +-----+-----+-----+----------+-----+--------------+---- 130 | TBD | N | L1 | class 1 | L2 | class 2 |... 131 +-----+-----+-----+----------+-----+--------------+---- 133 Servers not equipped to interpret the user class specified by 134 a client MUST ignore it (although it may be reported). 136 DHCP clients implementing this option SHOULD allow users to enter 137 their User Class. 139 5. Security Considerations 141 DHCP currently provides no authentication or security 142 mechanisms. Potential exposures to attack are discussed 143 is section 7 of the protocol specification [1]. 145 6. References 147 [1] Droms, R., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol", RFC 2131, 148 March 1997. 150 [2] S. Alexander, R. Droms, "DHCP Options and BOOTP Vendor 151 Extensions", RFC 2132, March 1997. 153 [3] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement 154 Levels," RFC 2119, March 1997. 156 7. Acknowledgments 158 This document combines ideas from draft-ietf-dhc-userclass-03.txt 159 (by Glenn Stump and Ralph Droms) and 160 draft-ietf-dhc-useraddr-00.txt (by Ye Gu, Ramesh Vyaghrapuri and 161 Burcak Beser). It has been published as a revision to 162 draft-ietf-dhc-userclass-03.txt. 164 8. Author Information 166 Glenn Stump 167 IBM Networking Software 168 P.O. Box 12195 169 RTP, NC 27709 170 Phone: (919) 301-4277 171 Email: stumpga@us.ibm.com 173 Ralph Droms 174 Computer Science Department 175 323 Dana Engineering 176 Bucknell University 177 Lewisburg, PA 17837 178 Phone: (717) 524-1145 179 Email: droms@bucknell.edu 181 Ye Gu 182 Microsoft Corporation 183 One Microsoft Way 184 Redmond, WA 98052 185 Phone: 425 936 8601 186 Email: yegu@microsoft.com 188 Ramesh Vyaghrapuri 189 Microsoft Corporation 190 One Microsoft Way 191 Redmond, WA 98052 192 Phone: 425 703 9581 193 Email: rameshv@microsoft.com 195 Burcak Beser 196 3Com Corporation 197 3800 Golf Road 198 Rolling Meadows, IL 199 Phone: 847 262 2195 200 Email: Burcak_Beser@3com.com 202 Ann Demirtjis 203 Microsoft Corporation 204 One Microsoft Way 205 Redmond WA 98052 206 Phone: 425-705-2254 207 Email: annd@microsoft.com 209 Jerome Privat 210 BT Advanced Communications Technology Centre 211 Adastral Park, Martlesham Heath, IP5 3RE 212 UK 213 Phone: +44 1473 648910 214 Email: jerome.privat@bt.com 216 9. Expiration 218 This document will expire on July 2000.