Re: [dhcwg] recommendation on DHCP6 source port numbers

David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu> Thu, 29 February 2024 18:40 UTC

Return-Path: <farmer@umn.edu>
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 327EBC180B50 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Feb 2024 10:40:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.106
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.106 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=umn.edu
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zuJBfl8G3btb for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Feb 2024 10:40:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mta-p6.oit.umn.edu (mta-p6.oit.umn.edu [134.84.196.206]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5B0F3C180B46 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Feb 2024 10:40:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mta-p6.oit.umn.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4Tm0Q852yNz9vsjj for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Feb 2024 18:40:00 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at umn.edu
Received: from mta-p6.oit.umn.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mta-p6.oit.umn.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tR4u6Q8Hl3LH for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Feb 2024 12:40:00 -0600 (CST)
Received: from mail-ed1-f72.google.com (mail-ed1-f72.google.com [209.85.208.72]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mta-p6.oit.umn.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4Tm0Q81rD3z9vsjd for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Feb 2024 12:40:00 -0600 (CST)
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mta-p6.oit.umn.edu 4Tm0Q81rD3z9vsjd
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mta-p6.oit.umn.edu 4Tm0Q81rD3z9vsjd
Received: by mail-ed1-f72.google.com with SMTP id 4fb4d7f45d1cf-566c4326700so93834a12.0 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Feb 2024 10:40:00 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=umn.edu; s=google; t=1709231998; x=1709836798; darn=ietf.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=hIH3yUhzxY0BazXnLyqpORevfjmKeDOER+iv92qa/Pw=; b=aRLR2SZKdgOW1VdZ5hVczy8tGs7XeJ73Gy6SxRl9OhRLYwWLTfvE4dPFYd3Juy/tYx CZpW5X00mjTiwavssMZa2e/hnWv8d2UZvLIiIRe7g9qywV4DRYcoUACa/wzacMPTRf2J t3jGwZ9yTsJD/Rn6lR48CAeANJgb5Su9MKvInU4ck6dh5nOqr9jrADxVWSv1bAcs7SCW no2qFIlduOYajosEf4Uvv6hU/MXDXTdJVn/DxwxqIAFkC/z8JzV5FeAExnaD4zTfovIQ Nf19LMRR1f2fZCUjA2UkhR0OpeOIERqb/cj8+aOoniAKPgXUXBwYuUfqsXBOkKEgf7eK OH8Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1709231998; x=1709836798; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=hIH3yUhzxY0BazXnLyqpORevfjmKeDOER+iv92qa/Pw=; b=KG/jjyF8FXHXNodGjKBVp2Bq5NVQGU9ctryRyuufsiWKIj5PNeVpYvBaco9G/JmJJf cxgoVI41pm/LZOcU3lstNuyfQ9fSsfV5SmmW2o8h+TnvgOYsA2iC9kvzDAr50r93pu7s 6wTmnYcmmgEQZbkA795LZ4MCkVOJt21a+BZusoyAVapXj2yHQtqH6h6tg57rI2TCOkcr uGevgtKDnbcjfbdiRc6uTZrAMtHhBacrxbLIBSA4/9poLae5sPIFrti+HTmUeTXPhQ58 x5nazin+b8s7dzs/Simm9c8BrtwEb8I10ikDZ0A5kMxoQ6AyCjDeqOKeaHGzWIHj0bGX A1Cg==
X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCXjQt3cuYCvMknXWPq7lLwXTHdSnWlbwy4BRc01H+whZ4+BZTWqLpB0tRtFA8wo9889YzNuCmH4RGWCt+kzSg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YwK8OlKk721uaUYVlNbD6oMutoOb4YXy+xcLivWD6VXul8bEZF4 SOj0Y7efOUBC44dAp3H5Xcp9/rkiut1yWSIjnazKcGkUVag/hiB2o5i7N/dTDQZJ9f+977PBVty rKWf74T22mzUj6IhaFed/+chYUBfE+fp8KgySdMFvsCtffagfv147SlOLU4oL0fxZejpH7dqO8/ qz297yAd72x33TD8TpakhmJ0HS0S2WP2LC
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6402:2711:b0:566:ab90:1073 with SMTP id y17-20020a056402271100b00566ab901073mr1650748edd.34.1709231998552; Thu, 29 Feb 2024 10:39:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHgEjC//nADr2ln6l0PY0ElAkH6fOXzP4eYLQyuZUwECAYVWmqHushHmW0PBG/4xbL6nIQq3hyQEnOrdEdV+/c=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6402:2711:b0:566:ab90:1073 with SMTP id y17-20020a056402271100b00566ab901073mr1650738edd.34.1709231998168; Thu, 29 Feb 2024 10:39:58 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAN-Dau3m2_L7J9T9VBk7oyHTK0EeMeuiv+jNpuMGE3m1T623=A@mail.gmail.com> <CC99EB8A-3350-4682-B273-D0656AD8F7F4@employees.org>
In-Reply-To: <CC99EB8A-3350-4682-B273-D0656AD8F7F4@employees.org>
From: David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu>
Date: Thu, 29 Feb 2024 12:39:41 -0600
Message-ID: <CAN-Dau1SPXgyHg_fkmU6rTxWpt-edAWA9hM2kR1qyP8t1XW+_Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ole Trøan <otroan=40employees.org@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>, dhcwg <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000017040a0612899644"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/9m_D5_9f8T1sa51Bq-m7OTmQ5dY>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] recommendation on DHCP6 source port numbers
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: Dynamic Host Configuration <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, 29 Feb 2024 18:40:05 -0000

If we did, that would ensure DHCP messages will make it through typical
stateful firewalls without special rules.

Clients receive DHCP messages on UDP (destination) port 546.  Servers and
relay agents receive DHCP messages on UDP (destination) port 547.

Clients, servers, and relay agents SHOULD send DHCP messages from their
designated destination ports, as this will facilitate firewall traversal
for DHCP messages. Nevertheless, DHCP messages MUST be accepted from any
UDP (source) port, and regardless of the source port used, return DHCP
messages MUST be sent to their designated destination port.


On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 12:05 PM Ole Trøan <otroan=
40employees.org@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

> Should we also make it recommended to use the designated port as the
> source port? With the may to send arbitrary port and a must to accept an
> arbitrary port?
>
> O.
>
> On 29 Feb 2024, at 18:51, David Farmer <farmer=40umn.edu@dmarc.ietf.org>
> wrote:
>
> 
> Ok, it's a little less wordy this time.
>
> Clients receive DHCP messages on UDP (destination) port 546.  Servers and
> relay agents receive DHCP messages on UDP (destination) port 547.
>
> Clients, servers, and relay agents MAY send DHCP messages from any UDP
> (source) port they are allowed to use, including their designated
> destination ports. Nevertheless, regardless of the source port used, DHCP
> messages MUST be sent to their designated destination ports.
>
> Thanks
>
> On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 10:24 AM David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu> wrote:
>
>> Would this text clarify things?
>>
>> Clients receive DHCP messages on UDP (destination) port 546.  Servers and
>> relay agents receive DHCP messages on UDP (destination) port 547.
>>
>> Clients, servers, and relay agents MAY send DHCP messages from any UDP
>> (source) port they are allowed to use, including their designated
>> destination ports. Nevertheless, regardless of the source port the client
>> uses, the server or relay agent MUST send traffic to the designated
>> destination port of the client. And vice versa, regardless of the source
>> port used by the server or relay agent, the client MUST send traffic to the
>> designated destination port of the server or relay agent.
>>
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 10:03 AM Ole Troan <otroan=
>> 40employees.org@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Bernie,
>>>
>>> > DHCPv6 has been successfully deployed and this is the first I recall
>>> of this kind of discussion/issue.
>>> > You would likely also invalidate a lot of implementations with such a
>>> change, which is not really in line with advancing this to Full Standard.
>>>
>>> It’s a lot more important to have the specification clear and
>>> unambiguous. I think it has been shown that it isn’t.
>>> Happy with whatever solution there is consensus for, but the ambiguity
>>> has to be resolved I think.
>>>
>>> O.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> dhcwg mailing list
>>> dhcwg@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> ===============================================
>> David Farmer               Email:farmer@umn.edu
>> Networking & Telecommunication Services
>> Office of Information Technology
>> University of Minnesota
>> 2218 University Ave SE        Phone: 612-626-0815
>> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
>> ===============================================
>>
>
>
> --
> ===============================================
> David Farmer               Email:farmer@umn.edu
> Networking & Telecommunication Services
> Office of Information Technology
> University of Minnesota
> 2218 University Ave SE        Phone: 612-626-0815
> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
> ===============================================
>
>

-- 
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:farmer@umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE        Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================