[dhcwg] Need info regarding the case when both option 118 and option 82 sub-option 5 are received by dhcp packet
Vivek Dadu <vdadu@microsoft.com> Mon, 27 January 2014 17:27 UTC
Return-Path: <vdadu@microsoft.com>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 422261A0230 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Jan 2014 09:27:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_66=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 DGsYpiM-zFlH for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Jan 2014 09:27:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from na01-bl2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bl2lp0211.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.163.211]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF4C91A015A for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Jan 2014 09:27:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from BLUPR03CA033.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.141.30.26) by BY2PR03MB010.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.255.240.36) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.868.8; Mon, 27 Jan 2014 17:27:46 +0000
Received: from BL2FFO11FD051.protection.gbl (2a01:111:f400:7c09::174) by BLUPR03CA033.outlook.office365.com (2a01:111:e400:879::26) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.868.8 via Frontend Transport; Mon, 27 Jan 2014 17:27:45 +0000
Received: from mail.microsoft.com (131.107.125.37) by BL2FFO11FD051.mail.protection.outlook.com (10.173.161.213) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.847.12 via Frontend Transport; Mon, 27 Jan 2014 17:27:45 +0000
Received: from SINEX14HUBC402.southpacific.corp.microsoft.com (157.60.220.216) by TK5EX14HUBC105.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (157.54.80.48) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.174.2; Mon, 27 Jan 2014 17:27:08 +0000
Received: from SINEX14MBXC417.southpacific.corp.microsoft.com ([169.254.1.13]) by SINEX14HUBC402.southpacific.corp.microsoft.com ([157.60.220.216]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.002; Mon, 27 Jan 2014 17:27:05 +0000
From: Vivek Dadu <vdadu@microsoft.com>
To: "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Need info regarding the case when both option 118 and option 82 sub-option 5 are received by dhcp packet
Thread-Index: Ac8bg0rSC79rsu3vSBq+TaOWGAaXfw==
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 17:27:04 +0000
Message-ID: <2D833948ADBB574BAB0A4AD8CF32A8991B48EAC9@SINEX14MBXC417.southpacific.corp.microsoft.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.168.3.92]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_2D833948ADBB574BAB0A4AD8CF32A8991B48EAC9SINEX14MBXC417s_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-EOPAttributedMessage: 0
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:131.107.125.37; CTRY:US; IPV:NLI; EFV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009001)(6009001)(199002)(189002)(16236675002)(74502001)(87936001)(93516002)(81816001)(47446002)(16796002)(81686001)(81342001)(85806002)(74662001)(31966008)(54356001)(79102001)(56776001)(19300405004)(93136001)(2656002)(71186001)(15975445006)(69226001)(92726001)(86362001)(81542001)(74706001)(94316002)(87266001)(512954002)(74876001)(83322001)(33656001)(44976005)(19580395003)(77096001)(6806004)(85306002)(59766001)(74366001)(77982001)(92566001)(65816001)(4396001)(47976001)(50986001)(47736001)(54316002)(49866001)(83072002)(85852003)(84326002)(76176001)(80022001)(51856001)(90146001)(56816005)(46102001)(20776003)(63696002)(53806001)(55846006)(80976001)(76786001)(76796001)(76482001)(15202345003); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:BY2PR03MB010; H:mail.microsoft.com; CLIP:131.107.125.37; FPR:BEC641DC.AEB6871B.A1F18DFB.8AD2F809.201A3; InfoDomainNonexistentA:1; MX:1; LANG:en;
X-O365ENT-EOP-Header: Message processed by - O365_ENT: Allow from ranges (Engineering ONLY)
X-Forefront-PRVS: 0104247462
X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.com
Subject: [dhcwg] Need info regarding the case when both option 118 and option 82 sub-option 5 are received by dhcp packet
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 17:27:53 -0000
Hi RFC 3527 states that when both option 118 and option 82 sub-option 5 are received by DHCP server in a packet it shall the information contained in the link-selection sub- option(option 82 sub-option 5) MUST be used to control the allocation of an IP address in preference to the information contained in the subnet-selection option(option 118) however RFC 3011 (option 118) says that a DHCP proxy client using option 118 shall put its ip address in the GIADDR field. As a result of which the relay agent will not overwrite giaddr and the response packet will be unicasted to DHCP proxy client. Now RFC 3011 again says that if the server is not supporting option 118 then in the response packet it shall not put option 118 as a result of which the client receiving it shall drop it. So in a way I see this as a misconfigration, can somebody throw light on how this problem can be solved. Regards Vivek