[dhcwg] DHCP security
"Alper Yegin" <alper.yegin@yegin.org> Wed, 07 March 2007 09:05 UTC
Return-path: <dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HOs50-0007LN-Kq; Wed, 07 Mar 2007 04:05:02 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HOjTy-00052I-8r for dhcwg@ietf.org; Tue, 06 Mar 2007 18:54:14 -0500
Received: from mout.perfora.net ([217.160.230.41]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HOjTx-0001MD-3F for dhcwg@ietf.org; Tue, 06 Mar 2007 18:54:14 -0500
Received: from [88.233.140.237] (helo=IBM52A5038A94F) by mrelay.perfora.net (node=mrelayus0) with ESMTP (Nemesis), id 0MKoyl-1HOjTt2PnV-000050; Tue, 06 Mar 2007 18:54:12 -0500
From: Alper Yegin <alper.yegin@yegin.org>
To: dhcwg@ietf.org
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2007 01:54:07 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510
Thread-Index: AcdgSroHu394mmQRRTaOm8EWeKEN4g==
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028
Message-ID: <0MKoyl-1HOjTt2PnV-000050@mrelay.perfora.net>
X-Provags-ID: perfora.net abuse@perfora.net login:abf7a4bb310ea4dfc9b6841113e2970f
X-Provags-ID2: V01U2FsdGVkX18Kp1qtF63XZFdXL01DGbqTD+qC7NW4indL7/1 vtFZ08M8O+9FAWJSAq61soSmeMtUacgpP3segDAzfDQxztcVKy qWw/GUWJICqEDh9Hl+S3Q==
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: cf4fa59384e76e63313391b70cd0dd25
Cc: "'Narayanan, Vidya'" <vidyan@qualcomm.com>
Subject: [dhcwg] DHCP security
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
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>
Errors-To: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org
Given that both RFC 3118 and RFC 4030 are optional to implement and use, how would you describe DHCP is used "securely"? Each time we rely on using DHCP to deliver a new option, we face such questions. Given that the aforementioned RFCs are "optional", reliance on the "lower layer security" (e.g., IPsec, link-layer, or even physical-layer) fills in the gap for deployments. Rather than having to explain such things in drafts that are simply "using DHCP", I'd like to provide reference to a DHCP document that describes it. Is there such a document somewhere? Alper _______________________________________________ dhcwg mailing list dhcwg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
- [dhcwg] DHCP security Alper Yegin