[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