Re: [dhcwg] regarding the relay agents, VPN Devices and broadcast bit

Andre Kostur <akostur@incognito.com> Mon, 20 January 2014 16:37 UTC

Return-Path: <akostur@incognito.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 3DE961A01CB for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 08:37:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.579
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.579 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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 FlTY3kv7i7sj for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 08:37:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from na3sys010aog105.obsmtp.com (na3sys010aog105.obsmtp.com [74.125.245.78]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 526811A01C1 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 08:37:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vb0-f41.google.com ([209.85.212.41]) (using TLSv1) by na3sys010aob105.postini.com ([74.125.244.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUt1Q02bu8fdUP61jxuQrxd9IAdtUQSo3@postini.com; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 08:37:39 PST
Received: by mail-vb0-f41.google.com with SMTP id g10so3017254vbg.28 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 08:37:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=ehSTS2c2CIT/tQ+AXiwoYwlxAurFVEHndPef/e3NDeY=; b=UJtFXPYQ/qezbH9oSSXo5iMUhnMGl0GgMvx3K5HxzkOY2KyKLiHjYg7BQqWD7HUrYz u475fcJE2HhinOjfnbjvMGpt/NUayBkWgkYAUzRmOHN7f4n90MVQF6iOuiaJodcMjucB MattFvcmICQrSkS4Zw91shyzkItMMJhcDKVlrTjhAxxvjA0flEiZ7u0fGlXBAnW/I/Bs WoSK6d0usznLS+CSlr9NZKSflQWcj4YrnjqnC3ED8QEfFe7ifUUIrKIHeuMLp+pN4+6q 1V6nZwFGDYL+9kignBEwHCijjaaUmi9YrFBrAV1WbblamJwjBYneDHE0JkD8+TwdUZfw nIBw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnsHm9iFXdm4oIuGGxi2b9KFWIFzxn6iRyUMwC3+eO+KK7YbmPdPZ9fysRcwGRUQx2yEiL02eXrVAjn939Oh7Rl/A73/dCUCF/vERKFp88Skg25yqi9Lzl1ZsQM3H1Ld/Klj5KmPTdQDAh6aDfuU4H/ePb0mw==
X-Received: by 10.220.193.70 with SMTP id dt6mr11091203vcb.17.1390235858510; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 08:37:38 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.220.193.70 with SMTP id dt6mr11091193vcb.17.1390235858336; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 08:37:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.220.204.3 with HTTP; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 08:37:38 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <2D833948ADBB574BAB0A4AD8CF32A8991B488FBD@SINEX14MBXC417.southpacific.corp.microsoft.com>
References: <2D833948ADBB574BAB0A4AD8CF32A8991B488FBD@SINEX14MBXC417.southpacific.corp.microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 08:37:38 -0800
Message-ID: <CAL10_BqmYYpjB8318ZSD1yeHGvr9bjPSgbOo5S0NKq3UTfUEXw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Andre Kostur <akostur@incognito.com>
To: Vivek Dadu <vdadu@microsoft.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] regarding the relay agents, VPN Devices and broadcast bit
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, 20 Jan 2014 16:37:41 -0000

That's entirely up to your (VPN) device.  How the rest of your IP
traffic is routed is beyond the scope of DHCP.  DHCP has done its job
in assigning a 172.1.1.x address for the request.

As for the broadcast bit.. if the request was relayed, that bit is of
little consequence to the DHCP server beyond simply setting it in the
returned packet.  The Relay will need to pay attention to that bit
though.

On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 5:53 AM, Vivek Dadu <vdadu@microsoft.com> wrote:
> Hi All
>
> I have a query regarding a scenario concerning option 118. Here it goes
>
>
>
> “Say a VPN device acting as a dhcp proxy on behalf of its VPN clients has an
> ip address 10.0.0.2 and belongs to subnet 10.0.0.0/24, however it wants to
> assign the ip address belonging to subnet 172.1.1.0/24 to one of its VPN
> clients, so it sends the subnet selection option 118 filled with the data
> 172.1.1.0 and subnet mask filled with data 255.255.255.0 as a result a relay
> agent receives it and forwards to dhcpserver, the dhcp server unicasts the
> packet to the relay agent, now will the relay agent need a special setting
> to tell it that packets destined to 172.1.1.0/24 subnet will be sent on
> 10.0.0.0/24 interface”
>
> Also would like to know that will the broadcast bit on packet based on which
> the server decides to broadcast or unicast a response packet have any impact
> on the way relay agent processes the packet.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
> Vivek
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> dhcwg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
>



-- 
Andre Kostur