Subject: [dhcwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dhc-client-id-01.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 07:10:25 -0700

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Dynamic Host Configuration Working Group of the IETF.

	Title           : Client Identifier Option in DHCP Server Replies
	Author(s)       : Narasimha Swamy
                          Gaurav Halwasia
                          Prashant Jhingran
	Filename        : draft-ietf-dhc-client-id-01.txt
	Pages           : 5
	Date            : 2011-08-16

   This document updates RFC2131 [RFC2131].  The changes to [RFC2131]
   defined in this draft clarifies the use of &#39;client identifier&#39; option
   by the DHCP servers.  The clarification addresses the issues arising
   out of the point specified by [RFC2131] that the server &#39;MUST NOT&#39;
   return client identifier&#39; option to the client.

Requirements

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dhc-client-id-01.txt

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dhc-client-id-01.txt

---

From: "Prashant Jhingran (pjhingra)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2011 10:58:08 +0530

Hi all,

An updated version of the draft-ietf-dhc-client-id-01 has been submitted
to DHC WG for review.

This draft attempts to highlight the problems faced and perspective
solution when a DHCP client, not having a valid hardware address value
to be filled in 'chaddr' field, may set this field as zero. The authors
would like to know WG comments/views on this proposal so that we can
take it forward. Many thanks in advance. 

-
Regards,
Prashant Jhingran

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of [email-masked]
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2011 7:40 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: [dhcwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dhc-client-id-01.txt

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories. This draft is a work item of the Dynamic Host Configuration
Working Group of the IETF.

	Title           : Client Identifier Option in DHCP Server
Replies
	Author(s)       : Narasimha Swamy
                          Gaurav Halwasia
                          Prashant Jhingran
	Filename        : draft-ietf-dhc-client-id-01.txt
	Pages           : 5
	Date            : 2011-08-16

   This document updates RFC2131 [RFC2131].  The changes to [RFC2131]
   defined in this draft clarifies the use of &#39;client
identifier&#39; option
   by the DHCP servers.  The clarification addresses the issues arising
   out of the point specified by [RFC2131] that the server &#39;MUST
NOT&#39;
   return client identifier&#39; option to the client.

Requirements

This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dhc-client-id-01.txt 
_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2011 15:34:03 +0000

Just to clarify what's going on here, this document was a working group item back in 2004, and has not been worked on since.   The document clarifies that the DHCP server has to return the client-identifier option if the client sent it; this is necessary in cases where the client does not have a value to store in chaddr.

I think this document makes sense, although I'm not sure that there is a real-world use case for it.   I'm curious to know what motivated its revival—can you tell us why you're suddenly working on it again, Prashant?

---

From: "Prashant Jhingran (pjhingra)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 10:59:11 +0530

Hi Ted,

We recently came across an issue where the client was indeed setting
'chaddr' as zero (hence there exist such clients) and as a result was
unable to process the reply packets. Although there may be several
workarounds, we thought of a solution which coincidentally was also
suggested in draft-ietf-dhc-client-id-00 way back in 2004 and therefore
we thought of collaboration.  

The latest version incorporates the suggestions/comments made on -00
version of this draft and also highlights the issues faced by both relay
agent and the client when 'chaddr' is set as zero.  We appreciate your
acknowledgement and we welcome comments from WG members on this draft.

-
Regards,
Prashant Jhingran

-----Original Message-----
From: Ted Lemon [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2011 9:04 PM
To: Prashant Jhingran (pjhingra)
Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dhc-client-id-01.txt

Just to clarify what's going on here, this document was a working group
item back in 2004, and has not been worked on since.   The document
clarifies that the DHCP server has to return the client-identifier
option if the client sent it; this is necessary in cases where the
client does not have a value to store in chaddr.

I think this document makes sense, although I'm not sure that there is a
real-world use case for it.   I'm curious to know what motivated its
revival-can you tell us why you're suddenly working on it again,
Prashant?

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 13:07:11 +0000

On Aug 17, 2011, at 10:29 PM, Prashant Jhingran (pjhingra) wrote:

Was the client broken, or using a link layer that doesn't support clients having link-layer addresses?

---

From: "Prashant Jhingran (pjhingra)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 13:57:31 +0530

Hi Ted,

Sorry for the delay in response, was travelling. 

This may not necessary happen in case of broken clients. This may happen
when dhcp client is a base station *or* when the client is connected via
interfaces like multilink PPP etc, which has no MAC address. So we can
expect 'chaddr' as zero in certain networks. Pls let me know your
thoughts, thanks in adv.

-

Regards,

Prashant Jhingran

From: Ted Lemon [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2011 6:37 PM
To: Prashant Jhingran (pjhingra)
Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; Gaurav Halwasia
(ghalwasi)
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dhc-client-id-01.txt

	We recently came across an issue where the client was indeed
setting
	'chaddr' as zero (hence there exist such clients) and as a
result was
	unable to process the reply packets. Although there may be
several
	workarounds, we thought of a solution which coincidentally was
also
	suggested in draft-ietf-dhc-client-id-00 way back in 2004 and
therefore
	we thought of collaboration.  

Was the client broken, or using a link layer that doesn't support
clients having link-layer addresses?