RE: [dhcwg] DHCPv4 - definition of maximum message size.

"Barr Hibbs" <rbhibbs@pacbell.net> Sat, 07 May 2005 16:07 UTC

Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DURpj-00045W-DP; Sat, 07 May 2005 12:07:15 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DURpi-00045R-Lu for dhcwg@megatron.ietf.org; Sat, 07 May 2005 12:07:14 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA24333 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Sat, 7 May 2005 12:07:12 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from smtp803.mail.sc5.yahoo.com ([66.163.168.182]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DUS4R-00052N-Lr for dhcwg@ietf.org; Sat, 07 May 2005 12:22:28 -0400
Received: from unknown (HELO BarrH63p601) (rbhibbs@pacbell.net@64.170.116.226 with login) by smtp803.mail.sc5.yahoo.com with SMTP; 7 May 2005 16:07:10 -0000
From: Barr Hibbs <rbhibbs@pacbell.net>
To: Simon Kelley <simon@thekelleys.org.uk>, "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>
Subject: RE: [dhcwg] DHCPv4 - definition of maximum message size.
Date: Sat, 07 May 2005 09:07:10 -0700
Message-ID: <EJEFKKCLDBINLKODAFMDIECPFKAA.rbhibbs@pacbell.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0)
In-Reply-To: <427CE4D5.2020002@thekelleys.org.uk>
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1478
Importance: Normal
X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: bdc523f9a54890b8a30dd6fd53d5d024
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: rbhibbs@pacbell.net
List-Id: dhcwg.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org

yet another argument for revising the draft...  wonder if Rob and I can make
the deadline for the Paris IETF meeting (not that *I* can attend, darn it!)

--Barr


> -----Original Message-----
> From: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org]On Behalf Of
> Simon Kelley
> Sent: Saturday, May 07, 2005 08:55
> To: Bernie Volz (volz)
> Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [dhcwg] DHCPv4 - definition of maximum message size.
>
>
> Bernie Volz (volz) wrote:
> > It is too bad Barr Hibb's "RFC 2131 Implementation Issues" draft has
> > expired. See text below. The key part is:
>
> That's a valuable document which I'd not come across before, thanks.
>
> In case is ever gets revived, I have an addition to section 2.21,
> "Option Ordering"
>
>  >A number of clients exist that require that the DHCP message type be
>  >the first option (after the magic cookie).  We SHOULD restate that
>  >the client MUST NOT make any such assumption.  The only known
>  >ordering constraint concerns option 82, which is last.  CMTS vendors
>  >want it to be last, but suppose someone else wants their pet option
>  >to be last also -- how would we resolve this conflict?
>
> There's at least on widely deployed client (The Intel PXE client) which
> depends on option 60 (vendor class identifier) preceeding option 43
> (Vendor specific information.) So that's another constraint to add to
> the list.
>
>
>
> >         o  Clients SHOULD communicate their link-layer frame size to the
> >
> >            DHCP server via the DHCP MTU option.
> >
> > So, this is *LINK-LAYER* frame size.
> >
> > I believe this 576 size comes from RFC 791:
> >
> >   Total Length:  16 bits
> >
> >     Total Length is the length of the datagram, measured in octets,
> >     including internet header and data.  This field allows the length of
> >     a datagram to be up to 65,535 octets.  Such long datagrams are
> >     impractical for most hosts and networks.  All hosts must be prepared
> >     to accept datagrams of up to 576 octets (whether they arrive whole
> >     or in fragments).  It is recommended that hosts only send datagrams
> >     larger than 576 octets if they have assurance that the destination
> >     is prepared to accept the larger datagrams.
> >
> >     The number 576 is selected to allow a reasonable sized data block to
> >     be transmitted in addition to the required header information.  For
> >     example, this size allows a data block of 512 octets plus 64 header
> >     octets to fit in a datagram.  The maximal internet header is 60
> >     octets, and a typical internet header is 20 octets, allowing a
> >     margin for headers of higher level protocols.
> >
> > So, it should be treated as the "IP + UDP + DHCP" packet size.
> >
>
> That's clear, I'll log a bug report against the client which sends a
> Max. message of 548.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Simon.
>
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> dhcwg@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg


_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg