Re: [dhcwg] recommendation on DHCP6 source port numbers

Ole Trøan <otroan@employees.org> Thu, 29 February 2024 14:16 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.org>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EC36C14F5E6 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Feb 2024 06:16:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.104
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.104 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=employees.org
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZpIKvaVLDMXa for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Feb 2024 06:16:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from proxmox01.kjsl.com (proxmox01.kjsl.com [IPv6:2607:7c80:54:6::6]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7B17BC14EB19 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Feb 2024 06:16:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from proxmox01.kjsl.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox01.kjsl.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 03A8BE5A3D; Thu, 29 Feb 2024 14:16:03 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=employees.org; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type :date:from:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :reply-to:subject:subject:to:to; s=prox2023; bh=HKExh42rdnUrjQdO Za9gRiVJw6xci5w75RXRdz14Mao=; b=fwFwUQgSvRC3uTrbIC6dnHBMuGaB+RjC uSxFbaYezm89dYJNDylLUWhqvLeLr5S9ywyOhNB95aZAaXUVfWgi4krYxJdJ2IRE JpLjIGc+WV9jsPmzhpu8WmqvavhOaadHBBL81qhri5+nT5hi7wmsd5CqIGWjzDEl vSp5BFMoLJzUrRjEkKpqfbsIrE8TfX5XgoRMuzLultQX0v08RmUunuNey9SWoGWo ZkSzhX3GFmJwKLOxzkdcBYRstCYswuF3lPgvOKI6ToWPDiOEsCJSb0CHyAFS9YGY YGKzl7hf9hvfk6vmPTWc3ReE3oLfttCNxR4ItJMkyFOkqxtdOEp4RQ==
Received: from clarinet.employees.org (clarinet.employees.org [IPv6:2607:7c80:54:3::74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by proxmox01.kjsl.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id D0B39E59E8; Thu, 29 Feb 2024 14:16:02 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (ti0389q160-5480.bb.online.no [95.34.1.168]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by clarinet.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9AEBB4E11AAC; Thu, 29 Feb 2024 14:16:02 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-B68BA092-0DC2-4897-8F82-6AB50DD73293"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Ole Trøan <otroan@employees.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Date: Thu, 29 Feb 2024 15:15:50 +0100
Message-Id: <57E318FA-0DC5-4C57-9470-EA75435DF57F@employees.org>
References: <4A3D8AF6-A89A-4AB2-BACA-71F76378AD3E@gmail.com>
Cc: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>, Tomoyuki Sahara <tsahara@iij.ad.jp>, dhcwg@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <4A3D8AF6-A89A-4AB2-BACA-71F76378AD3E@gmail.com>
To: Bernie Volz <bevolz@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (21D61)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/hz_40xz5d_8JrzaeQM-f6TH4K2U>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] recommendation on DHCP6 source port numbers
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: Dynamic Host Configuration <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Thu, 29 Feb 2024 14:16:09 -0000

Guess we haven’t departed too far from bootp. 
Which seems to make a case for the client using the reserved port number also as the source port. 

Rfc951:
  The UDP header contains source and destination port numbers.  The
   BOOTP protocol uses two reserved port numbers, 'BOOTP client' (68)
   and 'BOOTP server' (67).  The client sends requests using 'BOOTP
   server' as the destination port; this is usually a broadcast.  The
   server sends replies using 'BOOTP client' as the destination port;
   depending on the kernel or driver facilities in the server, this may
   or may not be a broadcast (this is explained further in the section
   titled 'Chicken/Egg issues' below).  The reason TWO reserved ports
   are used, is to avoid 'waking up' and scheduling the BOOTP server
   daemons, when a bootreply must be broadcast to a client.  Since the
   server and other hosts won't be listening on the 'BOOTP client' port,
   any such incoming broadcasts will be filtered out at the kernel
   level.  We could not simply allow the client to pick a 'random' port
   number for the UDP source port field; since the server reply may be
   broadcast, a randomly chosen port number could confuse other hosts
   that happened to be listening on that port.

O.