Re: [dhcwg] passing relay info back to client

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Thu, 04 January 2018 19:57 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.com>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1011C126FB3 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Jan 2018 11:57:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Lgddj5v0O3jH for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Jan 2018 11:57:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qk0-x229.google.com (mail-qk0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DF654126DEE for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Jan 2018 11:57:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qk0-x229.google.com with SMTP id j137so3350674qke.10 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 04 Jan 2018 11:57:38 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=GUMsKpmD2XuudYAnejRyVMkEW+mGvsBRjeErh246W5o=; b=I6UEsA6Mp58rFCiYxKWyFScKUkq4qgWIMpI3o+SjzqmL32OYZKH63CW9O3Dkatfvgd rCBFZAF1puTqmOryIR9J+nkwHJlw81aXnp4grlwChQzbE09xu3bYFmRd1Uuwux1H9tq6 860RUPILSa8P2KbrLoGIV8HItLbdnTF4CbjvWgjFFTP1hfdmffJfxhvNDXd91FIB3Pw5 Cb+f4SMIJcfANWu6tAlHfQd9DhQA8bpFktYjpFjrg2qVFzorxJBKVvoKSVZ9yPg5DepW +WzPPV0y23x+Fjdyw+i5wYFMK20lOePImrVXpj4qaybIhM2ExxsbEjKgM42u4+pjwZ3c 49Tw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=GUMsKpmD2XuudYAnejRyVMkEW+mGvsBRjeErh246W5o=; b=knvdJoN5/KSOouP1cUruX3byxiDak/IkT4nCo+o72lMTB6oZfgxhaw22XP/tAFxKlu r6/M/0LNDgLKhGNoXnjPKaJ/5eVGYYIdCpOpxeYHvoEi+ZusQTo8h1uHiQEzDBpKP6f9 1EVzcxVMPpyzy3MQgdWtXeKXgYW/5I70XtUEtZ9ND9zGlvIXN+HbZ0I2FgMy0KiuA2Fo ulhWGzy/grnuI31L4xTDIieT9tiz29JlbxxuiTia6O+p4l3bZByhZJm3dyzgUC5gkvQC RIcvi0L0UYefPlCbtY+csSiAJIsAKd5lUEofn3NGdbJmfvY/Jbg/Uuvn9SfcKZo9QMSw 4rCg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxyteSRdTV5fmvo/wvOrYHgP7CcLtdO7RLr0Zk8dfoHo3tbPd5AIKn /kgc2PWG7F0Fb5/OlQR/OBWofA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBosYDTPrVWMbW6CLf0XSIwyX3yEVx/G2v4XXWJEKU1EgBPFP21HhUIgKbiHkxqwOMz/xIPdBIA==
X-Received: by 10.55.77.194 with SMTP id a185mr1019299qkb.241.1515095857868; Thu, 04 Jan 2018 11:57:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.30.153] (c-24-60-163-103.hsd1.nh.comcast.net. [24.60.163.103]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id n73sm2556681qka.79.2018.01.04.11.57.36 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 04 Jan 2018 11:57:37 -0800 (PST)
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Message-Id: <6C753DD6-D6E4-426B-ABE5-78F8C85AB66C@fugue.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_EE00942F-79BD-4363-8F76-C79C9BA7B9D7"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.2 \(3445.5.20\))
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2018 14:57:34 -0500
In-Reply-To: <88649CAA-99B6-48FA-8E47-6D386BD50FFD@contoso.com>
Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-netconf-zerotouch@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-netconf-zerotouch@ietf.org>
To: Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net>
References: <88649CAA-99B6-48FA-8E47-6D386BD50FFD@contoso.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.5.20)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/-gIXddbXjnQHRCRNMVBm2jsGdkY>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] passing relay info back to client
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dhcwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2018 19:57:42 -0000

On Jan 4, 2018, at 1:34 PM, Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net> wrote:
> In support for draft-ietf-netconf-zerotouch, I'm wondering about what relay information the DHCP client may learn in a DHCP response.  Specifically, it would be helpful for deployments that do not wish to track the movement of specific devices (serial numbers) if the device (via its DHCP client) could learn the relay information used by the DHCP Server to identify it.  However, sadly, I'm beginning to think that this is not possible...
>  
> For DHCPv4, RFC 3046 Section 2.1 says:
>  
>    The Relay Agent Information option echoed by a server MUST be removed
>    by either the relay agent or the trusted downstream network element
>    which added it when forwarding a server-to-client response back to
>    the client.
>  
> For DHCPv6, RFC 3315 Section 20.1 says:
>  
>    The relay agent processes any options included in the Relay-reply
>    message in addition to the Relay Message option, and then discards
>    those options.
>  
> Is this the end of the story, or am I overlooking something?  Do implementations ever pass the relay info back to the client anyway?   Would there be any interest in changing this behavior in DHCP so as to better support zerotouch bootstrapping scenarios?


RFC 6422 addresses this issue for DHCPv6.   There's no solution for DHCPv4.   In general, we don't want the relay to be adding options to the packet on the way to the client, so it would have to be special-case behavior.   There's no reason why something like RFC 6422 couldn't be done for DHCPv4—it's just that it's a legacy protocol, so we aren't doing work on it.

That said, can you talk about the actual problem you're trying to solve here?   What you said you want to do doesn't actually make sense to me, so either I'm missing something, or you're thinking of doing something with DHCP that doesn't actually make sense in the greater context of DHCP.