Network Working Group R. Johnson
Request for Comments: 5107 J. Jumarasamy
Category: Standards Track K. Kinnear
M. Stapp
Cisco Systems, Inc.
February 2008
DHCP Server Identifier Override Suboption
Status 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.
Abstract
This memo defines a new suboption of the DHCP relay information
option that allows the DHCP relay to specify a new value for the
Server Identifier option, which is inserted by the DHCP Server. This
allows the DHCP relay to act as the actual DHCP server such that
RENEW DHCPREQUESTs will come to the relay instead of going to the
server directly. This gives the relay the opportunity to include the
Relay Agent option with appropriate suboptions even on DHCP RENEW
messages.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
4. Server Identifier Override Suboption Definition . . . . . . . . 3
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. Intellectual Property Rights and Copyright . . . . . . . . . . 5
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Johnson, et al. Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 5107 Server ID Override Suboption February 2008
1. Introduction
There are many situations where a DHCP relay agent is involved, and
it can easily insert a Relay Agent Information option [3] with
appropriate suboptions into DHCPDISCOVER messages. Once the lease
has been granted, however, future DHCPREQUEST messages sent by a
client in RENEWING state are sent directly to the DHCP server, as
specified in the Server Identifier option. In this case, the relay
may not see these DHCPREQUEST messages (depending upon network
topology) and thus cannot insert the Relay Agent Information option
in the DHCPREQUEST messages.
This DHCP relay agent suboption, Server Identifier Override, allows
the relay agent to tell the DHCP server what value to place into the
Server Identifier option [5]. Using this, the relay agent can force
a host in RENEWING state to send DHCPREQUEST messages to the relay
agent instead of directly to the server. The relay agent then has
the opportunity to insert the Relay Agent Information option with
appropriate suboptions and relay the DHCPREQUEST to the actual
server. In this fashion, the DHCP server will be provided with the
same relay agent information upon renewals (such as Circuit-ID,
Remote-ID, Device Class, etc.) as was provided in the initial
DHCPDISCOVER message.
In short, this new suboption allows the DHCPv4 relay to function in
the same fashion as the DHCPv6 relay [7] currently does.
2. Conventions
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 [1].
3. Terminology
This document uses DHCP terminology as defined in section 1.5 of RFC
2131 [2], with the exception of the term "DHCP relay agent" replacing
"BOOTP relay agent".
Other terms used in this document:
o RENEW DHCPREQUEST - a DHCPREQUEST message sent by a client in
RENEWING state
Johnson, et al. Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 5107 Server ID Override Suboption February 2008
4. Server Identifier Override Suboption Definition
The format of the suboption is:
Code Len Overriding Server Identifier Address
+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| 11 | n | a1 | a2 | a3 | a4 |
+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
Figure 1
The option length (n) is 4. The octets "a1" through "a4" specify the
value that MUST be inserted into the Server Identifier option by the
DHCP Server upon reply.
DHCP servers that implement this Relay Agent Information suboption
MUST use this value, if present in a DHCP message received from a
client, as the value to insert into the Server Identifier option in
the corresponding response. The DHCP server must also record the
address in the suboption for use in subsequent messages to the DHCP
client until the next DHCP message is received from the DHCP relay
agent.
If a DHCP server does not understand/implement this Relay Information
suboption, it will ignore the suboption, and thus it will insert its
own appropriate interface address in the Server Identifier option.
In this case, the DHCP Relay will not receive RENEW DHCPREQUEST
messages from the client. When configuring a DHCP relay agent to use
this suboption, the administrator of the relay agent should take into
account whether or not the DHCP server to which the message will be
relayed will correctly understand this suboption.
When servicing a DHCPREQUEST message, the DHCP server would normally
look at the Server Identifier option for verification that the
address specified there is one of the addresses associated with the
DHCP server, silently ignoring the DHCPREQUEST if it does not match a
configured DHCP server interface address. If the DHCPREQUEST message
contains a Server Identifier Override suboption, however, comparison
should be made between the address in this suboption and the Server
Identifier option. If both the Server Identifier Override suboption
and the Server Identifier option specify the same address, then the
server should accept the DHCPREQUEST message for processing,
regardless of whether or not the Server Identifier option matches a
DHCP server interface.
The DHCP relay agent should fill in the giaddr field when relaying
the message, just as it normally would do.
Johnson, et al. Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 5107 Server ID Override Suboption February 2008
In a situation where the DHCP relay agent is configured to forward
messages to more than one server, the DHCP relay agent SHOULD forward
all DHCP messages to all servers. This applies to RENEW DHCPREQUEST
messages as well. The intent is that the DHCP relay agent should not
need to maintain state information about the DHCP lease.
DHCP relay agents implementing this suboption SHOULD also implement
and use the DHCPv4 Relay Agent Flags Suboption [4] in order to
specify whether the DHCP relay agent received the original message as
a broadcast or unicast. The DHCP server receiving a message
containing the Server Identifier Override Suboption may use this
additional information in processing the message.
Note that if the DHCP relay agent becomes inaccessible by the DHCP
client or loses network access to the DHCP server, further RENEW
DHCPREQUEST messages from the DHCP client may not be properly
processed and the DHCP client's lease may time out.
5. Security Considerations
Message authentication in DHCP for intradomain use where the out-of-
band exchange of a shared secret is feasible is defined in [6].
Potential exposures to attack are discussed in Section 7 of the DHCP
protocol specification in [2].
The DHCP Relay Agent Information option depends on a trusted
relationship between the DHCP relay agent and the DHCP server, as
described in Section 5 of RFC 3046. While the introduction of
fraudulent DHCP relay agent information options can be prevented by a
perimeter defense that blocks these options unless the DHCP relay
agent is trusted, a deeper defense using the authentication suboption
for DHCP relay agent information option [8] SHOULD be deployed as
well.
If a rogue DHCP relay agent were inserted between the DHCP client and
the DHCP server, it could redirect clients to itself using this
suboption. This would allow such a system to later deny RENEW
DHCPREQUESTs and thus force clients to discontinue use of their
allocated addresses. It could also allow the rogue relay to change,
insert, or delete DHCP options in DHCPACK messages and extend leases
beyond what the server has allowed. DHCP authentication [6] and/or
DHCP Relay Agent Information option authentication [8] would address
this case. (Note that, as is always the case, lack of DHCP
authentication would allow a rogue DHCP relay agent to change the
Server Identifier Override option in the DHCPOFFER and DHCPACK
messages without detection. This threat is not new to the Server
Identifier Override suboption.)
Johnson, et al. Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 5107 Server ID Override Suboption February 2008
This document does not add any new vulnerabilities that were not
already present, except in the case where DHCP authentication is
already in place, and DHCP clients require its use. It is suggested
that DHCP Authentication and DHCP Relay Agent Option Authentication
SHOULD be deployed when this option is used, or protection should be
provided against the insertion of rogue DHCP relay agents between the
client and server.
This relay suboption is not intended, by itself, to provide any
additional security benefits.
6. IANA Considerations
IANA has assigned a suboption number (11) for the Server Identifier
Override Suboption from the DHCP Relay Agent Information Option [3]
suboption number space.
7. Intellectual Property Rights and Copyright
The IETF has been notified of intellectual property rights claimed in
regard to some or all of the specification contained in this
document. For more information consult the online list of claimed
rights.
8. References
8.1. 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] Kinnear, K., Normoyle, M., and M. Stapp, "The Dynamic Host
Configuration Protocol Version 4 (DHCPv4) Relay Agent Flags
Suboption", RFC 5010, September 2007.
8.2. Informative References
[5] Alexander, S. and R. Droms, "DHCP Options and BOOTP Vendor
Extensions", RFC 2132, March 1997.
[6] Droms, R. and W. Arbaugh, "Authentication for DHCP Messages",
RFC 3118, June 2001.
Johnson, et al. Standards Track [Page 5]
RFC 5107 Server ID Override Suboption February 2008
[7] Droms, R., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins, C., and M.
Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)",
RFC 3315, July 2003.
[8] Stapp, M. and T. Lemon, "The Authentication Suboption for the
Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) Relay Agent Option",
RFC 4030, March 2005.
Authors' Addresses
Richard A. Johnson
Cisco Systems, Inc.
170 W. Tasman Dr.
San Jose, CA 95134
US
Phone: +1 408 526 4000
EMail:
[email protected]
Jay Kumarasamy
Cisco Systems, Inc.
170 W. Tasman Dr.
San Jose, CA 95134
US
Phone: +1 408 526 4000
EMail:
[email protected]
Kim Kinnear
Cisco Systems, Inc.
170 W. Tasman Dr.
San Jose, CA 95134
US
Phone: +1 408 526 4000
EMail:
[email protected]
Mark Stapp
Cisco Systems, Inc.
170 W. Tasman Dr.
San Jose, CA 95134
US
Phone: +1 408 526 4000
EMail:
[email protected]
Johnson, et al. Standards Track [Page 6]
RFC 5107 Server ID Override Suboption February 2008
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) 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
[email protected].
Johnson, et al. Standards Track [Page 7]
