The DHCPv4 Relay Agent Identifier Suboption
draft-ietf-dhc-relay-id-suboption-01.txt

Status of this Memo

By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.

Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.

Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as “work in progress.”

The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

This Internet-Draft will expire on March 23, 2009.

Abstract

This memo defines a new Relay Agent Identifier suboption for the Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol's (DHCP) Relay Agent Information option. The suboption carries a value that uniquely identifies the relay agent device. The value may be administratively-configured or may be generated by the relay agent. The suboption allows a DHCP relay agent to include the identifier in the DHCP messages it sends.

Table of Contents

1.  Introduction
2.  Terminology
3.  Example Use-Cases
    3.1.  Industrial Ethernet
    3.2.  Bulk Leasequery
4.  Suboption Format
5.  Relay Identifier Types
6.  Generating a Relay Identifier
7.  Security Considerations
8.  IANA Considerations
9.  References
    9.1.  Normative References
    9.2.  Informative References
§  Author's Address
§  Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements

1.  Introduction

The Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv4 (DHCPv4) [RFC2131] (Droms, R., “Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol,” March 1997.) provides IP addresses and configuration information for IPv4 clients. It includes a relay agent capability, in which network elements receive broadcast messages from clients and forward them to DHCP servers as unicast messages. In many network environments, relay agents add information to the DHCP messages before forwarding them, using the Relay Agent Information option [RFC3046] (Patrick, M., “DHCP Relay Agent Information Option,” January 2001.). Servers that recognize the relay information option echo it back in their replies.

This specification introduces a Relay Agent Identifier suboption for the Relay Information option. The Relay-Id suboption carries an sequence of octets that is intended to identify the relay agent uniquely within the administrative domain. The identifier may be administratively configured: in some networks it may be adequate to assign ASCII strings such as "switch1" and "switch2". Alternatively, the identifier may be generated by the relay agent itself, and we specify use of [RFC3315] (Droms, R., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins, C., and M. Carney, “Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6),” July 2003.) DUIDs for this purpose.

2.  Terminology

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119] (Bradner, S., “Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels,” March 1997.).

DHCPv4 terminology is defined in [RFC2131] (Droms, R., “Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol,” March 1997.), and the DHCPv4 Relay Agent Information Option in [RFC3046] (Patrick, M., “DHCP Relay Agent Information Option,” January 2001.). DUID terminology is in [RFC3315] (Droms, R., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins, C., and M. Carney, “Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6),” July 2003.).

3.  Example Use-Cases

3.1.  Industrial Ethernet

DHCP typically identifies clients based on information in their DHCP messages - such as the Client-Identifier option, or the value of the chaddr field. In some networks, however, the location of a client - its point of attachment to the network - is a more useful identifier. In factory-floor networks (commonly called 'Industrial' networks), for example, the role a device plays is often fixed and based on its location. Using manual address configuration is possible (and is common) but it would be beneficial if DHCP configuration could be applied to these networks.

One way to provide connection-based identifiers for industrial networks is to have the network elements acting as DHCP relay agents supply information that a DHCP server could use as a client identifier. A straightforward way to form identifier information is to combine something that is unique within the scope of the network element, such as a port/slot value, with something that uniquely identifies that network element, such as a unique identifier.

3.2.  Bulk Leasequery

There has been quite a bit of recent interest in extending the DHCP Leasequery protocol [RFC4388] (Woundy, R. and K. Kinnear, “Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) Leasequery,” February 2006.) to accomodate some additional situations. There are two recent drafts ([draft‑kinnear] (Kinnear, K., Volz, B., Russell, N., and M. Stapp, “Bulk DHCPv4 Lease Query (draft-kinnear-dhc-dhcpv4-bulk-leasequery-*),” July 2008.) and [draft‑dtv] (Rao, D., Joshi, B., and P. Kurapati, “DHCPv4 bulk lease query (draft-dtv-dhc-dhcpv4-bulk-leasequery-*),” July 2008.)) proposing a variety of enhancements to the existing Leasequery protocol. Both describe cases where identifying the DHCP relay agent would be helpful in restoring binding information associated with the client downstream from the device acting as a relay.

4.  Suboption Format

Format of the Relay Agent Identifier suboption:

   0                   1                   2                   3
   0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |SUBOPT_RELAY_ID|    length     |     type      |               |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+               |
  .                                                               .
  .                     identifier (variable)                     .
  .                                                               .
  +---------------------------------------------------------------+

  Where:

  SUBOPT_RELAY_ID   [TBD]

  length            the number of octets in the suboption; the
                    minimum length is one.

  type              a single octet describing the type of
                    identifier that is present.

  identifier        the identifying data.

5.  Relay Identifier Types

For clarity, the suboption specified here includes a type octet that describes the data used in the identifier field. The type value zero is reserved and MUST NOT be used. Two type values are defined here: RELAY_IDENTIFIER_DUID and RELAY_IDENTIFIER_ASCII. RELAY_IDENTIFIER_DUID is used when the identifier field contains an [RFC3315] (Droms, R., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins, C., and M. Carney, “Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6),” July 2003.) DUID. Administrators may want to assign human-friendly ASCII identifiers: RELAY_IDENTIFIER_ASCII is used when the identifier field contains an ASCII string.

6.  Generating a Relay Identifier

As described in Section 1 (Introduction), in some situations it may be useful for network devices to generate identifiers themselves. Relay agents who send the Relay Agent Identifier suboption using identifiers that are not administratively-configured MUST be generated following the procedures in the DUID section of [RFC3315] (Droms, R., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins, C., and M. Carney, “Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6),” July 2003.). Relay agents who use generated identifiers SHOULD make the generated value visible to their administrators via their user-interface, through a log entry, or through some other mechanism.

7.  Security Considerations

Security issues with the Relay Agent Information option and its use by servers in address assignment are discussed in [RFC3046] (Patrick, M., “DHCP Relay Agent Information Option,” January 2001.) and [RFC4030] (Stapp, M. and T. Lemon, “The Authentication Suboption for the Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) Relay Agent Option,” March 2005.). Relay agents who send the Relay Agent Identifier suboption SHOULD use the Relay Agent Authentication suboption [RFC4030] (Stapp, M. and T. Lemon, “The Authentication Suboption for the Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) Relay Agent Option,” March 2005.) to provide integrity protection.

8.  IANA Considerations

We request that IANA assign a new suboption code from the registry of DHCP Agent Sub-Option Codes maintained in http://www.iana.org/assignments/bootp-dhcp-parameters.

Relay Agent Identifier Suboption [TBD]

We request that IANA establish a new registry of DHCP Relay Agent Identifier Sub-Option Types, to be maintained in http://www.iana.org/assignments/bootp-dhcp-parameters. The Identifier Type is a single octet. The initial values assigned in this document are:

RELAY_IDENTIFIER_NULL 0

RELAY_IDENTIFIER_DUID 1

RELAY_IDENTIFIER_ASCII 2

Additional Identifier Type values will be allocated and assigned through IETF consensus, as defined in [RFC2434] (Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, “Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs,” October 1998.).

9.  References

9.1. Normative References

9.2. Informative References

Author's Address

Full Copyright Statement

Copyright © The IETF Trust (2008).

This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.

This document and the information contained herein are provided on an “AS IS” basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Intellectual Property

The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org.