Subject: [dhcwg] Clarification regarding RFC 2131

From: "Gaurav Halwasia (ghalwasi)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 09:45:41 +0530

Hi Folks,

I am presently working on a issue wherein client is sending DHCP packets
with zero hardware address.  I remember that I initiated a discussion
few months back concluding that DHCP packets can indeed have (in few
cases though) zero hardware address.

Further, RFC says 2 things:-

1.       Client-identified option must not be present in downstream
packets (DHCPACK/DHCPOFFER).

2.       Client identifies the DHCP reply by matching the hardware
address/client identifier.

In case client has zero mac address, we will end up having  in a
situation wherein we don't have client identifier and hardware address
both in the reply packet and DHCP client won't be able to identify that
whether the reply it is receiving is for itself or not.

Any thoughts..?

Thanks,

Gaurav

---

From: Andre Kostur <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 04:06:25 -0700

There was a draft (draft-ietf-dhc-client-id-00.txt) back in 2004 to try to
cover this case, but it doesn't appear to have made it out to RFC status.

On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 21:15, Gaurav Halwasia (ghalwasi) <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> with zero hardware address.  I remember that I initiated a discussion few
> months back concluding that DHCP packets can indeed have (in few cases
> though) zero hardware address.
>
>
>
> 1.       Client-identified option *must not* be present in downstream
> In case client has zero mac address, we will end up having  in a situation
> wherein we don’t have client identifier and hardware address both in the
> reply packet and DHCP client won’t be able to identify that whether the
> reply it is receiving is for itself or not.
>
>
>
> Any thoughts..?
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Gaurav
>
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
>
>

-- 
Andre Kostur
Senior Software Design Engineer
P: 604-678-2864  SIP: [email-masked]
<http://www.incognito.com/uc>

---

From: "Gaurav Halwasia (ghalwasi)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 19:51:06 +0530

Thanks Andre for pointing this out. It seems we need to again persue
this in working group.

-Gaurav

From: Andre Kostur [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 4:36 PM
To: Gaurav Halwasia (ghalwasi)
Cc: [email-masked]; Ralph Droms (rdroms); GIRI KUTHETHOOR (gkutheth)
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Clarification regarding RFC 2131

There was a draft (draft-ietf-dhc-client-id-00.txt) back in 2004 to try
to cover this case, but it doesn't appear to have made it out to RFC
status.

On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 21:15, Gaurav Halwasia (ghalwasi)
<[email-masked]> wrote:

Hi Folks,

Any thoughts..?

Thanks,

Gaurav

-- 
Andre Kostur

---

From: Andre Kostur <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 09:26:54 -0700

I went digging through the archives the last time this draft was brought up.
 There were some changes to be made to the table in the draft (MAY vs MUST),
and another person expressed a concern that if this was the beginning of
options that are being reflected back to the client, perhaps a more generic
way of listing which options to which this applied should be created.
 Although RFC 3011 (2000, vs client-id which was published in 2004) predates
this draft, and already applies that behaviour to option 118.  So I'm not
sure that this concern applies.

On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 07:21, Gaurav Halwasia (ghalwasi) <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> Thanks Andre for pointing this out. It seems we need to again persue this
> in working group.
>
>
>
> -Gaurav
>
>
>
> *From:* Andre Kostur [mailto:[email-masked]]
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 16, 2011 4:36 PM
> *To:* Gaurav Halwasia (ghalwasi)
> *Cc:* [email-masked]; Ralph Droms (rdroms); GIRI KUTHETHOOR (gkutheth)
> *Subject:* Re: [dhcwg] Clarification regarding RFC 2131
>
>
>