Re: [dhcwg] Regarding dhcpv4 client id

Venkataratnam Naidu <ratnameee@gmail.com> Tue, 06 October 2020 03:59 UTC

Return-Path: <ratnameee@gmail.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 E441F3A1056 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Oct 2020 20:59:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 krLUbNwYduyC for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Oct 2020 20:59:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm1-x336.google.com (mail-wm1-x336.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::336]) (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 54B103A0B83 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Oct 2020 20:59:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm1-x336.google.com with SMTP id j136so1525853wmj.2 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 05 Oct 2020 20:59:46 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=uE32yVvOiu+jry9WAwx2K8uosEQtX626i5ig5CkurMU=; b=Tq86tY7jLji8Tu00ql5qanYBgyCbGADN1jIswL/xvo2Sitr1RN+IiBDLfxrti774xp cPIsBe8rirC6YbwfGxJ3vqc0+9UQH7KRFm+sHoLHcmaXRODtplW0ADL34cxy/0NH9ZEO lt1yNBZ+dMp67ENDRxmGLdyzQeahzZ5zpWSp0WoAwY5cGzS5M5GMpsrBWyDFkmpyv3nM 9jqday8yoQId4IL3kLYqBGeTpf35FgCFWvoMp3+7T4fgBwTa6fOqtVR5PEYPcQ1icnRF MV++aJvT2FwlBojbMfQ6zdHfx/Iuh4+qlQmHp1LMR9F8/TE5xy5VgnHojhEszpyU8eO8 XXRQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=uE32yVvOiu+jry9WAwx2K8uosEQtX626i5ig5CkurMU=; b=MuP9Wkzm5ZczFv0yPMNdqQvv7Of+BStOD2HPgAqQhrAblLzmKHa38fGdZvkdn7G+dN 708RmKencC0jsoxK0OJHKvKpYMvled20UYubCi57PT1ksIsGrTjvoEcA9pgEiGW0FHx6 AtQLCV6dRCmLzV6U26yUip4X+gIvtdvnbM17MD6qxfIYxHCkZ1sQnwGLW4560rBTgShQ 6wr1Jkhl7jVQ5+6HUkkq1P9uwqS56N4eFLaGfaFXR4rVPb5TTHWKYIAVRHe13A9Hgnyc ix9DpzFS8hrdLTWEB4N+1cAItwfZisBlprtDFUWDSiWnTCgaR7FD00T85SmhLNINVOiX Q89A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5328QJchDQErQpV08vSVct982kU/ulxUU++5fko3DV/WuciqDs4f s4bZzr7cUfcj3h25B/4j/9bO4YrqtphZ+fEnhwdIrew=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyeEYsnE1ylP0F0LAByyqgLzGGwnki2M/a2n7QOXYADipEyQp1pNJN+aUvlIs4lxTZ3y1O8p5jt8v0rAP2XXx0=
X-Received: by 2002:a1c:96cf:: with SMTP id y198mr2539866wmd.104.1601956784647; Mon, 05 Oct 2020 20:59:44 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CANgMM_CQvWO4iARKt7apNQHFSzLmhCEcONVpueydfWEei1Gi2w@mail.gmail.com> <8309d902-03e0-9548-9c0d-80c7a3accb75@marples.name>
In-Reply-To: <8309d902-03e0-9548-9c0d-80c7a3accb75@marples.name>
From: Venkataratnam Naidu <ratnameee@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2020 09:29:32 +0530
Message-ID: <CANgMM_Dsqu_ydS400o=gnePODY-hXHr-wjGPZ0voKuJgTpmxsQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Roy Marples <roy@marples.name>
Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000001833c405b0f8a1e2"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/A1kktfpamcDRkkjB6X_ZuD-kqPo>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Regarding dhcpv4 client id
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Tue, 06 Oct 2020 03:59:48 -0000

Hi Roy,

Thank you for the clarification.

Note sure whether all  server implementations are mandating it.  To make it
work with all servers,  is that better to add type 0

Regards,
Venkat.

On Mon, Oct 5, 2020 at 1:09 PM Roy Marples <roy@marples.name> wrote:

> On 05/10/2020 06:53, Venkataratnam Naidu wrote:
> > Hi Experts,
> >
> > I have a question on dhcpv4 client id that client sends in dhcp
> discover/request
> > msg.
> >
> > when the client id is other than hardware address, is that mandatory to
> encode
> > "type 0" in client-identifier.
> > if client doesn't encode type 0, does this work in all dhcp server
> implementations.
>
>  From RFC 2132 section 9.14
>
> Identifiers SHOULD be treated as opaque objects by DHCP servers.
>
> The problem here is should. Servers *do* try to interpet the client id and
> some
> reject the DHCP outright if it cannot.
> The use of MUST would have been better here, but sadly that ship sailed
> years ago.
>
> RFC 8415 section 11 does improve this for DHCPv6, but sadly there are
> still
> servers out there that reject unknown DUID types because the word SHOULD
> is
> still there.
>
> Short answer - no it's not mandatory as per the RFC's but server
> implementations
> make it so.
>
> Roy
>