[dhcwg] Protocol Action: Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) to Proposed Standard

The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> Tue, 17 December 2002 19:58 UTC

Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA21790 for <dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Dec 2002 14:58:11 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id gBHK0jM32571 for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 17 Dec 2002 15:00:45 -0500
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gBHK0iv32568 for <dhcwg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Dec 2002 15:00:45 -0500
Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA21786 for <dhcwg-web-archive@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Dec 2002 14:57:39 -0500 (EST)
Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gBHJvRv32429; Tue, 17 Dec 2002 14:57:27 -0500
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gBHJtav32361 for <dhcwg@optimus.ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Dec 2002 14:55:36 -0500
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA21624; Tue, 17 Dec 2002 14:52:29 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <200212171952.OAA21624@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce: ;
Cc: RFC Editor <rfc-editor@isi.edu>, Internet Architecture Board <iab@isi.edu>, dhcwg@ietf.org
From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 14:52:29 -0500
Subject: [dhcwg] Protocol Action: Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) to Proposed Standard
Sender: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
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>


The IESG has approved the Internet-Draft 'Dynamic Host Configuration
Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)' <draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-28.txt> as a
Proposed Standard.  This document is the product of the Dynamic Host
Configuration Working Group.  The IESG contact persons are Erik
Nordmark and Thomas Narten.


Technical Summary
 
      The Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) enables
      DHCP servers to pass configuration parameters such as IPv6 network
      addresses to IPv6 nodes. It offers the capability of automatic
      allocation of reusable network addresses and additional
      configuration flexibility. This protocol is a stateful counterpart
      to "IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration" (RFC2462) and can be
      used separately or concurrently with the latter to obtain
      configuration parameters.

      DHCPv6 offers two modes of operation. In stateful mode, the DHC
      server maintains per-client configuration information (e.g.,
      addresses). In stateless mode, the DHC server stores no per-client
      information. Stateless mode is used when the information provided
      is the same regardless of who asks for it, or because the
      appropriate configuration information to be returned to a client
      can be determined idempotently based on the information on the
      request (e.g., all clients connected to particular links are to use
      the same set of DNS servers).
 
Working Group Summary
 
  There was consensus for this in the WG and no significant issues were
  raised during the IETF Last Call.
 
Protocol Quality
 
  This protocol has been reviewed for the IESG by Thomas Narten.


RFC Editor Note:

In Section 21.1, delete the following sentence from the first
 paragraph:

 > Relay agents and servers MUST support manual configuration and
 > installation of static keys.

 In Section 21.1, change the item:

 > Key management Because the relay agents and servers must be
 > manually configured, no automated key management
 > is required.

 to

	Key management Because the relay agents and servers are used
	      within an organization, public key schemes are
            not necessary. Because the relay agents and
            servers must be manually configured, manually
            configured key management may suffice, but
            doesn't provide defense against replayed
            messages. Accordingly, IKE with preshared
            secrets SHOULD be supported. IKE with public
            keys MAY be supported.

 In Section 23, Security Considerations, add the following new second 
 paragraph, immediately after the first one:

	Use of manually configured preshared keys for IPsec between relay
      agents and servers does not defend against replayed DHCP messages.
      Replayed messages can represent a DOS attack through exhaustion 
	of processing resources, but not through mis-configuration or
      exhaustion of other resources such as assignable addresses.
_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg