Internet DRAFT - draft-sboyapati-dhcp-relay-chaining-dhcpv4
draft-sboyapati-dhcp-relay-chaining-dhcpv4
Network Working Group S Boyapati
Internet-Draft
Intended Status: Experimental Juniper Networks
Expires: June 27, 2015 January 27 2015
Relay Chaining in DHCPv4
draft-sboyapati-dhcp-relay-chaining-dhcpv4-00.txt
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and 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 January 8, 2010.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of
publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document.
Abstract
DHCP Relay Agents eliminate the necessity of having a DHCP server on
each physical network. In certain network configurations, a DHCP
server may be multiple subnets away from the DHCP client and multiple
Relay Agents may be configured to relay DHCP messages to and from
DHCP client. Such configuration can be supported only when each
Relay Agent adds certain Information to DHCP messages before relaying
them. This additional information helps in relaying the DHCP reply
back to the DHCP client through the same path. This mechanism is
referred as Relay Chaining.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. New sub-options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. peer-relay-agent-information Sub Option . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. peer-address Sub Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Relay Chaining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1. Handling DHCP messages in Relay Agent . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1.1. Handling Broadcast DHCP messages . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1.2. Handling Unicast DHCP messages . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. DHCP Server Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. Special Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.1. Multiple Layer 2 Relay Agents between DHCP client and
Layer 3 Relay Agent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7. Security Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9.1. Normative Reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9.2. Informative Reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Authors' Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1. Introduction
In some network configurations, DHCP server and clients are separated
by multiple Relay Agents. One such case is the network configuration
where Access Concentrators operate in Transparent Bridging mode as
described in document [layer2-relay-agent]. In such configurations,
there are situations where each of those relay agents need to add
relay-agent-information to the DHCP messages received on its
downstream interface. Relay chaining support in DHCPv4 will help in
solving following problems:
o In some deployments, Layer 3 Relay Agent uses unnumbered
interfaces. When these Layer 3 Relay Agents are used along with
Layer 2 Relay agents as described in [layer2-relay-agent] , they
need to maintain internal states to identify the outgoing
interface. Maintaining state information for each packet will not
scale as number of DHCP clients increases. With Relay Chaining,
Layer 3 Relay Agent can add its own Relay Agent Information option
that can be used to identify the outgoing interface for DHCP reply
messages.
This document describes the enhancements to Relay Agent functionality
when multiple Relay Agents are present between DHCP clients and
servers.
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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
This document uses the following terms:
o "Access Concentrator"
An Access Concentrator is a router or switch at the broadband access
provider's edge of a public broadband access network. This document
assumes that the Access Concentrator acts as a Transparent Bridge and
includes the DHCP relay agent functionality. For example: In DSL
environment, this is typically known as DSLAM.(Digital Subscriber
Line Access Multiplexer)
o "DHCP client"
A DHCP client is an Internet host using DHCP to obtain configuration
parameters such as a network address.
o "Layer 3 Relay Agent"
A Layer 3 Relay Agent is a third-party agent that transfers Bootstrap
Protocol (BOOTP) and DHCP messages between clients and servers
residing on different subnets, per RFC951 [RFC951] and RFC1542
[RFC1542].
o "DHCP server"
A DHCP server is an Internet host that returns configuration
parameters to DHCP clients.
o "downstream"
Downstream is the direction from the edge network towards the DHCP
Clients.
o "Transparent Bridge"
A device which does bridging based on MAC learning principles.
Bridge learns the Source MAC of the incoming frames and updates a
table with MAC/Interface information. While forwarding data packets,
bridge looks at this table to find the outgoing interface.
o "upstream"
Upstream is the direction from the DHCP Clients towards the edge
network.
o "Unnumbered Interfaces"
An interface with no IP address associated with it. IP packets
received on this interface will be processed like any other numbered
IP interface. It may use a local IP address of another interface
while forwarding packets.
3. New sub-options
The 'Relay Chaining in DHCPv4' requires the definition of following
new sub-options in Relay Agent Information [Option 82] option for
DHCP packet beyond those defined by RFC2131 [RFC2131] and RFC2132
[RFC2132]. See also Section 7, IANA Considerations.
3.1. peer-relay-agent-information Sub Option
This sub-option is defined under Relay Agent Information option
[Option 82]. A Relay Agent can use 'peer-relay-agent-information'
sub-option to store the Relay Agent Information option added by the
previous Relay Agent. The value field of this sub-option contains
the Relay Agent Information option present in the recevied DHCP
message. The new sub-option is as shown in the figure below:
SubOpt Len Value
+------+------+--------------------------+
| X | Len | Option 82 of Previous RA |
+------+------+--------------------------+
/ \
/ \
+------+-----+--------------------+
| 82 | N | i1 | i2 | ... | iN |
+------+-----+--------------------+
Code Len Relay Agent Information
Figure 1
3.2. peer-address Sub Option
'peer-address' sub-option is used to store the previous Relay Agent's
reachable IP address. It SHOULD be typically populated with the same
address as mentioned in the 'giaddr' field of the received message.
If there are multiple Relay Agents involved, this sub-option helps in
forwarding the reply back to the DHCP client through the same path.
The 'peer-address' sub-option is as follows:
SubOpt Len Sub-option Value
+--------+--------+--------------------------------+
| X | 4 | Previous RA's Address (giaddr) |
+--------+--------+--------------------------------+
Figure 2
4. Relay Chaining
Relay Chaining is defined as the mechanism where multiple Relay
Agents are involved in relaying a DHCP message between DHCP clients
and server. Each Relay Agent adds Relay Agent Information option to
the DHCP message as described below. The option of using relay
chaining mechanism MUST be configurable on Relay Agent in order to
provide compatibility to the previous solutions.
|
+-----+ |
|Host1|------+
+-----+ |
|
+-----+ |
|Host2|------+ +--------+
+-----+ | | | +--------+ +--------+
+------| | | | | |
| | Relay | | Relay | | DHCP |
| | Agent |---..---| Agent |--..--| Server |
| | #1 | | #2 | | |
+-----+ +------| | | | +--------+
|Host3|------+ | | +--------+
+-----+ | +--------+
|
+-----+ |
|Host4|------+
+-----+ |
|
|
Figure 3
A typical network configuration where Relay Chaining is required is
depicted in Figure 3. In the above case, two Relay Agents are
involved. Relay Agent #1 does not know the DHCP server and so is
configured to reach Relay Agent #2 for all DHCP messages. Relay
Agent #2 knows how to reach DHCP server and so relays a DHCP message
directly to DHCP server. DHCP server generates the reply messages
and sends it to Relay Agent #2 which relays the same to Relay Agent
#1.
4.1. Handling DHCP messages in Relay Agent
4.1.1. Handling Broadcast DHCP messages
o When a Relay Agent receives a DHCP request message which does not
contain the Relay Agent Information option, it SHOULD add the
Relay Agent Information option (Option 82 as described in RFC 3046
[RFC3046]) and 'giaddr' field as it deems appropriate. It should
relay the DHCP message to the DHCP server or next Relay Agent. If
a Relay Agent is a Layer 2 relay agent, it MUST NOT populate the
'giaddr' field in the DHCP message and should process it as per
[layer2-relay-agent]
o When a Relay Agent receives a DHCP request message which contains
a Relay Agent Information option, it SHOULD add the Relay Agent
Information Option as it deems appropriate and also populate the
'peer-relay-agent-information' sub-option as described in section
3.1.
4.1.2. Handling Unicast DHCP messages
As DHCP Clients unicast RENEW, RELEASE and INFORM messages directly
to the DHCP server, these messages are not intercepted by Relay
Agents and so these messages does not have any Relay Agent
Information options added to them.
Some existing Relay Agent implementations maintain lease/location
informations for each DHCP client. These implementations intercepts
unicast DHCP messages to keep the lease/location information updated.
So these Relay Agent adds Relay Agent Information option to unicast
DHCP messages as well. Relay Agents and DHCP server process them
similar to broadcast messages as described above in section 5.1.1.
5. DHCP Server Behavior
DHCP server would still find only one single Relay Agent Information
option [ Option 82 ] in the DHCP message which has been relayed by
multiple relay agents.
Some existing DHCP servers may use the Relay Agent Information option
to apply the IP Address and other parameter assignment policies.
These DHCP servers will have to employ recursive lookup algorithm to
find the relevant Option 82 [the Option 82 which was added by the
first Relay Agent]. Server MUST echo back the entire Option 82 as it
is.
6. Special Scenarios
6.1. Multiple Layer 2 Relay Agents between DHCP client and Layer 3
Relay Agent
There may be a network scenario when there are multiple Layer 2 Relay
Agents configured between DHCP clients and Layer 3 Relay Agent. In
this case, as described above, each Layer 2 Relay Agent MUST add
'Relay Agent Information' option and MUST not add 'peer-address' sub-
option in it. A Layer 2 Relay Agent can use this Relay Agent
Information option while relaying the DHCP Reply message back to the
DHCP client.
7. Security Consideration
o A Relay Agents relaying DHCP messages to another Relay Agent are
essentially DHCP clients for the DHCP messages. Thus, RFC3118
[RFC3118] is an appropriate mechanism for these DHCP messages.
o To restrict the number of Relay Agents in Relay Chaining, as
defined in RFC 1542 [RFC1542], a Relay Agent must silently discard
the DHCP message whose 'hops' field exceeds the value 16. A
network manager can use configuration option to set this threshold
to a smaller value.
8. IANA Considerations
This document needs IANA to provide a unique number for the following
new suboptions in Relay Agent Information option [Option 82]:
o To carry the peer relay agent information option. Please refer to
section 3.1 for more details.
o To carry the peer address. Please refer to section 3.2 for more
details.
9. References
9.1. Normative Reference
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2131] Droms, R., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol",
RFC 2131, March 1997.
[RFC3046] Patrick, M., "DHCP Relay Agent Information Option",
RFC 3046, January 2001.
[RFC3118] Droms, R. and B. Arbaugh, "Authentication for DHCP
Messages", RFC 3118, June 2001.
[layer2-relay-agent]
Joshi, B. and P. Kurapati, "Layer 2 Relay Agent",
draft draft-ietf-dhc-l2ra-04.txt, February 2009.
9.2. Informative Reference
[RFC951] Croft, B. and J. Gilmore, "Bootstrap Protocol (BOOTP)",
RFC 951, September 1985.
[RFC1542] Wimer, W., "Clarifications and Extensions for the
Bootstrap Protocol", RFC 1542, October 1993.
[RFC2132] Droms, R. and S. Alexander, "DHCP Options and BOOTP Vendor
Extensions", RFC 2132, March 1997.
Authors' Address
Suresh Boyapati
Juniper Networks
Bangalore 560 103
India
Email: sureshkb@juniper.net
URI: http://www.juniper.net/
