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
- [dhcwg] DHCPv4 - definition of maximum message si… Simon Kelley
- Re: [dhcwg] DHCPv4 - definition of maximum messag… David W. Hankins
- RE: [dhcwg] DHCPv4 - definition of maximum messag… Bernie Volz (volz)
- Re: [dhcwg] DHCPv4 - definition of maximum messag… Bud Millwood
- Re: [dhcwg] DHCPv4 - definition of maximum messag… Simon Kelley
- RE: [dhcwg] DHCPv4 - definition of maximum messag… Barr Hibbs
- RE: [dhcwg] DHCPv4 - definition of maximum messag… Barr Hibbs
- RE: [dhcwg] DHCPv4 - definition of maximum messag… Bernie Volz (volz)
- Re: [dhcwg] DHCPv4 - definition of maximum messag… David W. Hankins