[dhcwg] DHCPv4: Relay agents and packet sizes

Bud Millwood <budm@weird-solutions.com> Tue, 03 May 2016 11:17 UTC

Return-Path: <budmillwood@gmail.com>
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 C7B3E12D746 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 May 2016 04:17:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.4
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.4 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.199, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 aq18FebMWvh3 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 May 2016 04:17:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf0-x234.google.com (mail-lf0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BD91D12D576 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 May 2016 04:17:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf0-x234.google.com with SMTP id j8so17673303lfd.2 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 03 May 2016 04:17:50 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:date:message-id:subject:from:to; bh=VqVYHSKDc/XFLa2ph7qfzIQS5fy5Zs4LuwSqDRTkcFM=; b=NlCnBcC+Y/3o2I0JV6iYpwUo/O4w9XCHS60p/hhW2rls1B68T5YhM33GAr4WjMgS1m DJT2SSlm3F8VY1w1Ifw59J0TWQVvA+Q5XGi92xzppdF0jtmDRyW9n3PLqXcCzgKbM4J0 8fdoPoZ6dkKltL5U9+V+A5O1D9wgnWyE0lEWnafosXcVS0nj86FBj8dp0ZSOZoZcFdar uHvS9UgKiRTctNSXV9KgvZ+Tz9sstq1nLPYOIiHNLU7BbCRsn2Y279Oo+byn5nPoWic6 iKgvTd4aWvEcj1Sbfs2zGjkNxTC2AmopP+CoQn0cMUVJ+QSFOZ/RkJ6sn3VMrQYzcurj +XEA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:date:message-id:subject:from :to; bh=VqVYHSKDc/XFLa2ph7qfzIQS5fy5Zs4LuwSqDRTkcFM=; b=S0Ngs/05AcX5wKPJWdtpc9Vpqg/+6+yQmhs5uqv+wKXXNinuJ2o4Pndms8IJ8xFltW C1aqvHapUXV89dsFURbbgJwPDUQLlI+FMmhA3DDm9i0ycCVhhWiR1bA1OQmCHCdgHVuX LfONgU35o3y2GOrQKVJ+QarEMCnYboGMW9/MZkexpKjLCjhArCe+yM3HfJFr4MAPeBQX wDg3oxd4rwYTtfEyAfHPMTDQoMylmpZnO8N7XKwANBo4uTRs36YooHqTOYkOyx0dgkVX mTbtBkeQZ6wvkBTZ3jO/SwYlelWRKA1qzs39U2kQJhoNiCD8H5O3ya5r+YoQjD7HhHdi 1ETw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FVqIcKrxw+ki8dLZ9MuZz20r2ECPe3aAZx8iX8byAFiHT4uyEvpszdhs2h/kp8s2zACBNNV1fa5SnCL8A==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.182.103 with SMTP id ed7mr944389lbc.130.1462274268997; Tue, 03 May 2016 04:17:48 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: budmillwood@gmail.com
Received: by 10.112.63.168 with HTTP; Tue, 3 May 2016 04:17:48 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 03 May 2016 13:17:48 +0200
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 92qaBDZba6XMRzHYzwONpj3cdxQ
Message-ID: <CAOpJ=k1q84fU5XTkU6XUM3incv43dxiLy8tTAwKAmK_6=En8Qg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Bud Millwood <budm@weird-solutions.com>
To: "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/mOWfzRUeXNoOsXb-nrTmlAYdJSQ>
Subject: [dhcwg] DHCPv4: Relay agents and packet sizes
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <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: Tue, 03 May 2016 11:17:53 -0000

Hello all, hope everyone is well. Long time no see. I could use some advice:

Our DHCP server responds to clients with the same size packet as the
client sends us unless A) it's smaller than the minimum size or B) the
max-message-size option is present. In the case of (A) we bring it up
to the minimum size, in the case of (B) we use the max-message-size.

I have a CMTS that is placing both Remote ID and Circuit ID in DHCPv4
packets, and the Circuit ID is quite large (40 bytes?). I'm running
out of space in my response packet.

There is no max-message-size here, and we aren't overloading the file
or sname fields.

Any advice on the best way to handle this? For maximum compatibility,
should I be overloading the file/sname fields, or increasing the
packet size? (Increasing seems downright crazy)

What approaches do you use when you're getting squeezed like this?

Thanks in advance for any advice.

- Bud