Movatterモバイル変換


[0]ホーム

URL:


[RFC Home] [TEXT|PDF|HTML] [Tracker] [IPR] [Info page]

PROPOSED STANDARD
Network Working Group                                         R. JohnsonRequest for Comments: 3993                                T. PalaniappanCategory: Standards Track                                       M. Stapp                                                     Cisco Systems, Inc.                                                              March 2005Subscriber-ID Suboption for theDynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) Relay Agent OptionStatus of This Memo   This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the   Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for   improvements.  Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet   Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state   and status of this protocol.  Distribution of this memo is unlimited.Copyright Notice   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).Abstract   This memo defines a new Subscriber-ID suboption for the Dynamic Host   Configuration Protocol's (DHCP) relay agent information option.  The   suboption allows a DHCP relay agent to associate a stable   "Subscriber-ID" with DHCP client messages in a way that is   independent of the client and of the underlying physical network   infrastructure.Table of Contents1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22.  Requirements Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23.  The Subscriber-ID Suboption  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23.1.  Suboption Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34.  Relay Agent Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35.  DHCP Server Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .58.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .59.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .59.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .59.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6   Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7Johnson, et al.             Standards Track                     [Page 1]

RFC 3993                Subscriber-ID Suboption               March 20051.  Introduction   DHCP (RFC 2131 [2]) provides IP addresses and configuration   information for IPv4 clients.  It includes a relay agent capability   in which processes within the network infrastructure receive   broadcast messages from clients and forward them to DHCP servers as   unicast messages.  In network environments such as DOCSIS data-over-   cable and xDSL, it has proven useful for the relay agent to add   information to the DHCP message before forwarding it, by using the   relay agent information option (RFC 3046 [3]).   Servers that recognize the relay agent option echo it back in their   replies, and some of the information that relays add may be used to   help an edge device efficiently return replies to clients.  The   information that relays supply can also be used in the server's   decision making about the addresses and configuration parameters that   the client should receive.   In many service provider environments, it is desirable to associate   some provider-specific information with clients' DHCP messages.  This   is often done by using the relay agent information option.RFC 3046   defines Remote-ID and Circuit-ID suboptions that are used to carry   such information.  The values of those suboptions, however, are   usually based on a network resource such as an IP address of a   network access device, an ATM Virtual Circuit identifier, or a DOCSIS   cable-modem identifier.  As a result, the values carried in these   suboptions are dependent on the physical network configuration.  If a   client connects to the service provider network through different   paths, different values are carried in network-dependent suboptions.2.  Requirements 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 inRFC 2119 [1].3.  The Subscriber-ID Suboption   In complex service provider environments, connecting a customer's   DHCP configuration and administrative information is necessary.  The   Subscriber-ID suboption carries a value that can be independent of   the physical network configuration through which the subscriber is   connected.  This value complements, and might well be used in   addition to, the network-based relay agent option suboptions   discussed inSection 2.  The "subscriber-id" assigned by the provider   is intended to be stable as customers connect through different   paths, and as network changes occur.Johnson, et al.             Standards Track                     [Page 2]

RFC 3993                Subscriber-ID Suboption               March 2005   The Subscriber-ID information allows the service provider to   assign/activate subscriber-specific actions; e.g., assignment of host   IP address and subnet mask, DNS configuration, or trigger accounting.   This suboption is de-coupled from the access network's physical   structure, so subscriber moves from one access-point to another, for   example, would not require reconfiguration at the service provider's   DHCP servers.   The Subscriber-ID is an ASCII string; the encoding of the string is   defined inSection 3.1.  The semantic contents of the Subscriber-ID   string are, of course, provider-specific.  This specification does   not establish any semantic requirements on the data in the string.3.1.  Suboption Format   This memo defines a new DHCP relay agent option suboption that   carries a "Subscriber-ID" value.  The value is an ASCII string.  The   suboption takes a form similar to that of many other relay   information option suboptions:       0     1     2     3     4     5       +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+----+--       |Code | Len | Subscriber-ID string ...       +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+----+--   The Code for the suboption is 6.   The one-octet Len field is the length of the ID string, in octets.   The minimum length of the ID string is 1 octet.   The "Subscriber-ID" is an NVT ASCII [4] string.  The string MUST NOT   be NULL terminated, as the length is specified in the "Len" field.4.  Relay Agent Behavior   DHCP relay agents MAY be configured to include a Subscriber-ID   suboption if they include a relay agent information option in relayed   DHCP messages.  The subscriber-id strings themselves are assigned and   configured through mechanisms that are outside the scope of this   memo.Johnson, et al.             Standards Track                     [Page 3]

RFC 3993                Subscriber-ID Suboption               March 20055.  DHCP Server Behavior   This suboption provides additional information to the DHCP server.   If it is configured to support this option, the DHCP server may use   this information in addition to other relay agent option data and   other options included in the DHCP client messages in order to assign   an IP address and/or other configuration parameters to the client.   There is no special additional processing for this suboption.6.  Security Considerations   Message authentication in DHCP for intradomain use where the out-of-   band exchange of a shared secret is feasible is defined inRFC 3118   [5].  Potential exposures to attacks are discussed insection 7 of   the DHCP protocol specification inRFC 2131 [2].   The DHCP relay agent option depends on a trusted relationship between   the DHCP relay agent and the server, as described in section 5 ofRFC3046.  Fraudulent relay agent option data could potentially lead to   theft-of-service or exhaustion of limited resources (like IP   addresses) by unauthorized clients.  A host that tampered with relay   agent data associated with another host's DHCP messages could deny   service to that host, or interfere with its operation by leading the   DHCP server to assign it inappropriate configuration parameters.   While the introduction of fraudulent relay agent options can be   prevented by a perimeter defense that blocks these options unless the   relay agent is trusted, a deeper defense using authentication for   relay agent options via the Authentication Suboption [6] or IPSec [7]   SHOULD be deployed as well.   There are several data fields in a DHCP message conveying information   that may identify an individual host on the network.  These include   the chaddr, the client-id option, and the hostname and client-fqdn   options.  Depending on the type of identifier selected, the   Subscriber-ID suboption may also convey information that identifies a   specific host or a specific user on the network.  In practice, this   information isn't exposed outside the internal service-provider   network, where DHCP messages are usually confined.  Administrators   who configure data that's going to be used in DHCP Subscriber-ID   suboptions should be careful to use identifiers that are appropriate   for the types of networks they administer.  If DHCP messages travel   outside the service-provider's own network, or if the suboption   values may become visible to other users, that may raise privacy   concerns for the access provider or service provider.Johnson, et al.             Standards Track                     [Page 4]

RFC 3993                Subscriber-ID Suboption               March 20057.  IANA Considerations   IANA has assigned a value of 6 from the DHCP Relay Agent Information   Option [3] suboption codes for the Subscriber-ID Suboption described   in this document.8.  Acknowledgements   This document is the result of work done within Cisco Systems.   Thanks especially to Andy Sudduth for his review comments.9.  References9.1.  Normative References   [1]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement        Levels",BCP 14,RFC 2119, March 1997.   [2]  Droms, R., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol",RFC 2131,        March 1997.   [3]  Patrick, M., "DHCP Relay Agent Information Option",RFC 3046,        January 2001.   [4]  Postel, J. and J. Reynolds, "Telnet Protocol Specification", STD        8,RFC 854, May 1983.9.2.  Informative References   [5]  Droms, R. and W. Arbaugh, "Authentication for DHCP Messages",RFC 3118, June 2001.   [6]  Stapp, M., "The Authentication Suboption for the DHCP Relay        Agent Option", Work in Progress.   [7]  Droms, R.,"Authentication of Relay Agent Options Using IPSec",        Work in Progress.Johnson, et al.             Standards Track                     [Page 5]

RFC 3993                Subscriber-ID Suboption               March 2005Authors' Addresses   Richard Johnson   Cisco Systems, Inc.   170 W. Tasman Dr.   San Jose, CA  95134   USA   Phone: 408.526.4000   EMail: raj@cisco.com   Theyn Palaniappan   Cisco Systems, Inc.   170 W. Tasman Dr.   San Jose, CA  95134   USA   Phone: 408.526.4000   EMail: athenmoz@cisco.com   Mark Stapp   Cisco Systems, Inc.   1414 Massachusetts Ave.   Boxborough, MA  01719   USA   Phone: 978.936.0000   EMail: mjs@cisco.comJohnson, et al.             Standards Track                     [Page 6]

RFC 3993                Subscriber-ID Suboption               March 2005Full Copyright Statement   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions   contained inBCP 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 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 inBCP 78 andBCP 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 athttp://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.Acknowledgement   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the   Internet Society.Johnson, et al.             Standards Track                     [Page 7]

[8]ページ先頭

©2009-2026 Movatter.jp