[dhcwg] Question on DHCP reconfigure extension (RFC 3203)
"Peter Arberg" <parberg@redback.com> Mon, 19 November 2007 20:02 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 1IuCpU-0004ki-HY; Mon, 19 Nov 2007 15:02:48 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IuCpS-0004kE-SB for dhcwg@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Nov 2007 15:02:46 -0500
Received: from prattle.redback.com ([155.53.12.9]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IuCpP-0000jr-La for dhcwg@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Nov 2007 15:02:46 -0500
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by prattle.redback.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 508D8B45C05 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Nov 2007 12:02:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from prattle.redback.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (prattle [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 11617-04 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Nov 2007 12:02:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from PARBETM2XP2 (unknown [172.31.253.173]) by prattle.redback.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF3A0B45C03 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Nov 2007 12:02:42 -0800 (PST)
From: Peter Arberg <parberg@redback.com>
To: dhcwg@ietf.org
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 12:02:39 -0800
Organization: Redback Networks Inc.
Message-ID: <010801c82ae7$231379b0$ba3dfea9@ad.redback.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198
Thread-Index: Acgq5yKzW7FtSRnhTHmBE+FmUyXIsQ==
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at redback.com
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 93238566e09e6e262849b4f805833007
Subject: [dhcwg] Question on DHCP reconfigure extension (RFC 3203)
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: parberg@redback.com
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
Hi, Reading the RFC3203 on ForceRenew, it is not very specific how servers should format the DHCP packet, if just refer to "the normal DHCP message layout". Since this is a server initiated packet, can the server then select a new xid for the DHCP packet, or does it have to used the same xid as the client used in the last packet it send to the server ? Also RFC3203 says that any ForceRenew message MUST be authenticated using the procedures as described in [DHCP-AUTH], that seems like a strong requirement, and I read that like any clients support of RFC3203 can only happen if they also support DHCP Authentication Option 90, is that the intent of this requirement, or is it more a resommendation that DHCP Auth. is good for the security :) thanks, Peter _______________________________________________ dhcwg mailing list dhcwg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
- [dhcwg] Question on DHCP reconfigure extension (R… Peter Arberg