IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] recommendation on DHCP6 source port numbers

Ole Trøan <otroan@employees.org> Thu, 29 February 2024 18:05 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 55C7AC14F614 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Feb 2024 10:05:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.213
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.213 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_HTML_ONLY=0.1, MIME_HTML_ONLY_MULTI=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, MPART_ALT_DIFF=0.79, 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=no 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 UprNgb-dL2cO for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Feb 2024 10:05:39 -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 C3E58C1CAF30 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Feb 2024 10:05:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from proxmox01.kjsl.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox01.kjsl.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id C4382E6E12; Thu, 29 Feb 2024 18:05:38 +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=MpUPmNAv2l0ZRwqG fXINWMH+z8Z6sY0e61C4cieVjyw=; b=HYAjkd0CUiA7UG70vbzH0Wv1a6VUCuDl rJX5X19D/s/lPX5pbPcxBrBhjRTJaNXEZr1hb8E6dfQlC5eiI5SpU1jVwHeCKXrC mGBsPe48GW6blo1xRYK9spdlABid7b2Yt7wKHdu2wfwdnO5Zt+33UqOxWgYei/q/ QMbySYM9dls58u5PNhgCYbKOYkPWFxO9Sz2jr+TaGQm9V/BYreM27VLj22Rhs1Cb Qq/BnFmUu6gdXifDADmPWGwTOlcDKFVoDWuExnwfn/xw3mHAbc0WOOH9odnkydnw i2vEZDotUwBJtYTxX8hMX96nH+VD2NRGIlN7IjJMb76yZ2cNyQjPSA==
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 9E069E6E08; Thu, 29 Feb 2024 18:05:38 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (unknown [IPv6:2001:4650:c3ed:37a:a855:7e61:a191:a620]) (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 659A24E11C77; Thu, 29 Feb 2024 18:05:38 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-E3F17C3F-0AA8-4251-9772-91394EEE18AE"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Ole Trøan <otroan@employees.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Date: Thu, 29 Feb 2024 19:05:25 +0100
Message-Id: <CC99EB8A-3350-4682-B273-D0656AD8F7F4@employees.org>
References: <CAN-Dau3m2_L7J9T9VBk7oyHTK0EeMeuiv+jNpuMGE3m1T623=A@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: Ole Troan <otroan=40employees.org@dmarc.ietf.org>, dhcwg <dhcwg@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAN-Dau3m2_L7J9T9VBk7oyHTK0EeMeuiv+jNpuMGE3m1T623=A@mail.gmail.com>
To: David Farmer <farmer=40umn.edu@dmarc.ietf.org>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (21D61)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/y5fGn41_Og04Q8fS3jvdbBBQEqo>
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 18:05:43 -0000

Should we also make it recommended to use the designated port as the source port? With the may to send arbitrary port and a must to accept an arbitrary port?

O. 

On 29 Feb 2024, at 18:51, David Farmer <farmer=40umn.edu@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:


Ok, it's a little less wordy this time.

Clients receive DHCP messages on UDP (destination) port 546.  Servers and relay agents receive DHCP messages on UDP (destination) port 547.

Clients, servers, and relay agents MAY send DHCP messages from any UDP (source) port they are allowed to use, including their designated destination ports. Nevertheless, regardless of the source port used, DHCP messages MUST be sent to their designated destination ports.

Thanks

On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 10:24 AM David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu> wrote:
Would this text clarify things?

Clients receive DHCP messages on UDP (destination) port 546.  Servers and relay agents receive DHCP messages on UDP (destination) port 547.

Clients, servers, and relay agents MAY send DHCP messages from any UDP (source) port they are allowed to use, including their designated destination ports. Nevertheless, regardless of the source port the client uses, the server or relay agent MUST send traffic to the designated destination port of the client. And vice versa, regardless of the source port used by the server or relay agent, the client MUST send traffic to the designated destination port of the server or relay agent.

Thanks

On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 10:03 AM Ole Troan <otroan=40employees.org@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
Bernie,

> DHCPv6 has been successfully deployed and this is the first I recall of this kind of discussion/issue.
> You would likely also invalidate a lot of implementations with such a change, which is not really in line with advancing this to Full Standard.

It’s a lot more important to have the specification clear and unambiguous. I think it has been shown that it isn’t.
Happy with whatever solution there is consensus for, but the ambiguity has to be resolved I think.

O.
_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg" rel="noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg


--
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:farmer@umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota  
2218 University Ave SE        Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================


--
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:farmer@umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota  
2218 University Ave SE        Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email