rfc3495
Network Working Group B. Beser
Request for Comments: 3495 Juniper Networks
Category: Standards Track P. Duffy, Ed.
Cisco Systems
March 2003
Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) Option
for CableLabs Client Configuration
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.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
This document defines a Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP)
option that will be used to configure various devices deployed within
CableLabs architectures. Specifically, the document describes DHCP
option content that will be used to configure one class of CableLabs
client device: a PacketCable Media Terminal Adapter (MTA). The
option content defined within this document will be extended as
future CableLabs client devices are developed.
Beser & Duffy Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 3495 DHCP Option for CableLabs Clients March 2003
Table of Contents
1. Conventions used in this document............................ 2
2. Terminology.................................................. 2
3. Introduction................................................. 3
4. CableLabs Client Configuration Option Format................. 4
5. CableLabs Client Configuration Option: Sub-Option Definitions 5
5.1. TSP's DHCP Server Address Sub-Options.................. 5
5.2. TSP's Provisioning Server Address Sub-Option........... 6
5.3. TSP's AS-REQ/AS-REP Backoff and Retry.................. 6
5.4. TSP's AP-REQ/AP-REP Backoff and Retry.................. 7
5.5. TSP's Kerberos Realm Name Sub-Option................... 8
5.6. TSP's Ticket Granting Server Utilization Sub-Option.... 8
5.7. TSP's Provisioning Timer Sub-Option.................... 8
6. Informational Description of CCC Option Usage................ 9
7. IANA Considerations.......................................... 9
8. Legacy Use Information....................................... 9
9. Procedure for Adding Additional Sub-options.................. 9
10. Security Considerations...................................... 10
11. References................................................... 10
11.1. Normative References................................... 10
11.2. Informative References................................. 11
12. Acknowledgments.............................................. 11
13. Authors' Addresses........................................... 12
14. Full Copyright Statement..................................... 13
1. Conventions used in this document
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 BCP 14, RFC 2119 [1].
2. Terminology
Definitions of terms used throughout this document:
* "Telephony Service Provider" or "TSP"
The business entity from which a subscriber receives telephony
service.
See RFC 2131 [6] for additional DHCP terminology.
Beser & Duffy Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 3495 DHCP Option for CableLabs Clients March 2003
3. Introduction
Cable Television Laboratories, Inc. (CableLabs) is a non-profit
research and development consortium that serves the cable television
industry via design and specification of new and emerging broadband
service architectures. Several CableLabs initiatives define DHCP
clients that have specific DHCP configuration requirements. One such
initiative is the PacketCable project.
The PacketCable project is aimed at architecting, qualifying, and
supporting Internet-based multimedia services over cable-based packet
networks. These new multimedia services will include telephony and
videoconferencing, delivered using the basic Internet Protocol (IP)
technology that is used to send data via the Internet.
PacketCable 1.0 provides Voice over IP (VoIP) service delivery. The
VoIP service is supported at the customer site by two key components:
a Cable Modem (CM) and a Media Terminal Adapter (MTA). The CM
converts the cable RF signals to/from various IP voice protocols,
while the MTA converts the VoIP protocols into analog telephony
compatible with a common telephone.
The CM and MTA may be packaged together or separately. If packaged
together, the unit is referred to as an Embedded-MTA (EMTA - depicted
in Figure 1). If packaged separately, the MTA is referred to as a
Standalone MTA (SMTA).
|----------------------------------------------|
| |
| |-----------| |-------------| |
| | | | | |
Telephony | | Media | internal | Cable | | RF Link
----------|---| Terminal |===========| Modem |----|-------
Link | | Adapter | connection| | |
| |-----------| |-------------| |
| |
|----------------------------------------------|
Figure 1. PacketCable 1.0 Embedded-MTA
The CM and MTA are distinct IP devices: each has its own MAC address
and IP configuration. The CM and MTA utilize the DHCP protocol to
obtain IP configuration. It is assumed that the CM and MTA may be
administered by different business entities. The CM communicates
with and is configured by the Data Access Provider's (DAP's) DHCP
servers. Likewise, the MTA communicates with and is configured by
the Telephony Service Provider's (TSP's) DHCP servers.
Beser & Duffy Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 3495 DHCP Option for CableLabs Clients March 2003
The PacketCable architecture requires that the business entity
controlling the configuration of the CM also determines which
business entities control the configuration of the MTA. This is
similar to the example found in the PSTN system: individuals can pick
their long distance carriers even though the ultimate control of
their telephone remains with the local carrier.
Due to specific needs of the MTA configuration process (described in
[7]), a new CableLabs Client Configuration (CCC) option is needed for
the DHCP protocol. Both CM and MTA DHCP clients will request this
option. When requested, both the DAP and TSP DHCP servers will
populate this option into DHCP responses. See section 6 for further
operational details.
It should be noted that, although the CCC option will be initially
deployed to support PacketCable VOIP applications, the CCC option
will also be used to support various non VOIP applications. Use of
the CCC option does not necessarily mean that the service provider is
a TSP.
4. CableLabs Client Configuration Option Format
The option begins with a tag octet containing the option code (code
122). A length octet follows the tag octet. The value of the length
octet does not include itself or the tag octet. The length octet is
followed by "length" octets of sub-option content (total length, not
sub-option count). The option layout is depicted below:
+------+--------+--------------+--------------+---+--------------+
| 122 | Length | Sub-option 1 | Sub-option 2 |...| Sub-option n |
+------+--------+--------------+--------------+---+--------------+
When the total length of a CCC option exceeds 255 octets, the
procedure outlined in [4] MUST be employed to split the option into
multiple, smaller options.
A sub-option begins with a tag octet containing the sub-option code.
A length octet follows the tag octet. The value of the length octet
does not include itself or the tag octet. The length octet is
followed by "length" octets of sub-option information. The sub-
option layout is depicted below:
+-------------------+--------+------------------------+
| Sub-option Code | Length | Sub-option information |
+-------------------+--------+------------------------+
Beser & Duffy Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 3495 DHCP Option for CableLabs Clients March 2003
The sub-option codes are summarized below.
+---------+---------+--------------------------------------------+
| Sub- | Sent to | Description |
| option | | |
| Code | | |
+===================+============================================+
| 1 | CM | TSP's Primary DHCP Server Address |
+---------+---------+--------------------------------------------+
| 2 | CM | TSP's Secondary DHCP Server Address |
+---------+---------+--------------------------------------------+
| 3 | MTA | TSP's Provisioning Server Address |
+---------+---------+--------------------------------------------+
| 4 | MTA | TSP's AS-REQ/AS-REP Backoff and Retry |
+---------+---------+--------------------------------------------+
| 5 | MTA | TSP's AP-REQ/AP-REP Backoff and Retry |
+---------+---------+--------------------------------------------+
| 6 | MTA | TSP's Kerberos Realm Name |
+---------+---------+--------------------------------------------+
| 7 | MTA | TSP's Ticket Granting Server Utilization |
+---------+---------+--------------------------------------------+
| 8 | MTA | TSP's Provisioning Timer Value |
+---------+---------+--------------------------------------------+
| 9 - 255 | | Reserved for future extensions |
+---------+---------+--------------------------------------------+
5. CableLabs Client Configuration Option: Sub-Option Definitions
The following sections provide detailed descriptions of each sub-
option. There are a few general formatting rules:
- Fully Qualified Domain Names (FQDNs) MUST be encoded per RFC 1035
[3] section 3.1. Note that a terminating 0 is required. Also
note that compression, as described in RFC 1035 [3] section 4.1.4,
MUST NOT be applied.
- IPv4 addresses MUST be encoded as 4 binary octets in network
byte-order (high order byte first).
- All multi-octet quantities MUST be encoded per network byte-
ordering.
5.1. TSP's DHCP Server Address Sub-Options
The TSP DHCP Server Address sub-options identify the DHCP servers
from which an MTA is permitted to accept a DHCP OFFER. Sub-option 1
is the address of the TSP's primary DHCP server. Sub-option 2 is the
address of the TSP's secondary DHCP server.
Beser & Duffy Standards Track [Page 5]
RFC 3495 DHCP Option for CableLabs Clients March 2003
The sub-option length MUST be 4 and the sub-option MUST include the
DHCP server's IPv4 address as follows:
Code Len Address
+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| 1/2 | 4 | a1 | a2 | a3 | a4 |
+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
5.2. TSP's Provisioning Server Address Sub-Option
This option contains the address of the TSP's Provisioning server.
MTAs communicate with the Provisioning server at various stages in
their provisioning process.
The address can be configured as either an IPv4 address or as an
FQDN. The encoding of sub-option 3 will adhere to one of 2 formats.
1. IPv4 address. The sub-option length MUST be 5. The length octet
MUST be followed by a single octet that indicates the specific
address type that follows. This type octet MUST be set to 1 to
indicate an IPv4 address. The type octet MUST be followed by 4
octets of IPv4 address:
Code Len Type Address
+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| 3 | 5 | 1 | a1 | a2 | a3 | a4 |
+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
2. FQDN. The length octet MUST be followed by a single octet that
indicates the specific address type that follows. This type octet
MUST be set to 0 to indicate an FQDN. The type octet MUST be
followed by the encoded FQDN:
Code Len Type FQDN
+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ +-----+
| 3 | n+1 | 0 | f1 | f2 |...| fn |
+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ +-----+
It is not anticipated that additional type codes, beyond IPv4 (1) and
FQDN (0), will be required. Thus, IANA will not be required to
maintain a registry of type codes.
5.3. TSP's AS-REQ/AS-REP Backoff and Retry
This sub-option configures an MTA's Kerberos AS-REQ/AS-REP timeout,
backoff, and retry mechanism.
Beser & Duffy Standards Track [Page 6]
RFC 3495 DHCP Option for CableLabs Clients March 2003
RFC 1510 [5] does not define a backoff/retry mechanism to be employed
when an AS-REQ/AS-REP message exchange fails. This sub-option
contains parameters required by the backoff/retry mechanism outlined
in [8].
The encoding of this sub-option is depicted below:
Code Len Nom Timeout Max Timeout Max Retries
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| 4 |12 |n1 |n2 |n3 |n4 |m1 |m2 |m3 |m4 |r1 |r2 |r3 |r4 |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
The length octet of this sub-option MUST contain the value 12.
The length octet MUST be followed by 4 octets containing the AS-
REQ/AS-REP nominal (initial) timeout value. This value is a 32 bit
unsigned quantity in units of milliseconds.
The next 4 octets MUST contain the AS-REQ/AS-REP maximum timeout
value. This value is a 32 bit unsigned quantity in units of seconds.
The final 4 octets MUST contain the AS-REQ/AS-REP maximum retry
count. This value is a 32 bit unsigned quantity.
5.4. TSP's AP-REQ/AP-REP Backoff and Retry
This sub-option configures an MTA's Kerberos AP-REQ/AP-REP timeout,
backoff, and retry mechanism.
RFC 1510 [5] does not define a backoff/retry mechanism to be employed
when an AP-REQ/AP-REP message exchange fails. This sub-option
contains parameters required by the backoff/retry mechanism outlined
in [8].
The encoding of this sub-option is depicted below:
Code Len Nom Timeout Max Timeout Max Retries
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| 5 |12 |n1 |n2 |n3 |n4 |m1 |m2 |m3 |m4 |r1 |r2 |r3 |r4 |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
The length octet of this sub-option MUST contain the value 12.
The length octet MUST be followed by 4 octets containing the AP-
REQ/AP-REP nominal (initial) timeout value. This value is a 32 bit
unsigned quantity in units of seconds.
Beser & Duffy Standards Track [Page 7]
RFC 3495 DHCP Option for CableLabs Clients March 2003
The next 4 octets MUST contain the AP-REQ/AP-REP maximum timeout
value. This value is a 32 bit unsigned quantity in units of seconds.
The final 4 octets MUST contain the AP-REQ/AP-REP maximum retry
count. This value is a 32 bit unsigned quantity.
5.5. TSP's Kerberos Realm Name Sub-Option
The PacketCable architecture requires an MTA to authenticate itself
to the TSP's network via the Kerberos protocol. A Kerberos Realm
name is required at the MTA to permit a DNS lookup for the address of
the TSP's Kerberos Key Distribution Center (KDC) entity.
The Kerberos Realm name MUST be encoded per the domain style realm
name described in RFC 1510 [5]. This realm name MUST be all capital
letters and conform to the syntax described in RFC 1035 [3] section
3.1. The sub-option is encoded as follows:
Code Len Kerberos Realm Name
+-----+-----+-----+-----+ +-----+
| 6 | n | k1 | k2 |...| kn |
+-----+-----+-----+-----+ +-----+
5.6. TSP's Ticket Granting Server Utilization Sub-Option
This sub-option encodes a boolean value which indicates whether an
MTA should or should not utilize a TGT (Ticket Granting Ticket) when
obtaining a service ticket for one of the PacketCable application
servers. The encoding is as follows:
Code Len Value
+-----+-----+-----+
| 7 | 1 | 1/0 |
+-----+-----+-----+
The length MUST be 1. The last octet contains a Boolean value which
MUST be either 0 or 1. A value of 1 MUST be interpreted as true. A
value of 0 MUST be interpreted as false.
5.7. TSP's Provisioning Timer Sub-Option
The provisioning timer defines the maximum time allowed for the MTA
provisioning process to complete. If this timer expires before the
MTA has completed the provisioning process, the MTA should reset the
timer and re-start its provisioning process from the beginning.
Beser & Duffy Standards Track [Page 8]
RFC 3495 DHCP Option for CableLabs Clients March 2003
The sub-option length MUST be 1. The value octet specifies 0 to 255
minutes. A value of 0 means the timer MUST be disabled.
Code Len Value
+-----+-----+---------+
| 8 | 1 | (0..255)|
+-----+-----+---------+
6. Informational Description of CCC Option Usage.
Cablelabs client devices issue DHCP requests that include DHCP
options 55 (Parameter Request List) and 60 (Vendor Class Identifier).
Option 55 will request the CCC option from the DHCP server. Option
60 will indicate the specific Cablelabs client device type, thus
directing the DHCP server to populate specific CCC sub-option content
in its responses. The details of which CCC sub-options are populated
for each specific client type are specified in various Cablelabs
project specifications. For example, specific usage of the CCC
option for the PacketCable project is described in [7].
Note that client devices never populate the CCC option in their DHCP
requests.
7. IANA Considerations
IANA has assigned a value of 122 for the DHCP option code described
in this document.
8. Legacy Use Information
The CableLabs Client Configuration option initially used the site-
specific option value of 177 (0xB1). The use of the site-specific
option is to be deprecated now that IANA has issued an official
option number.
9. Procedure for Adding Additional Sub-options
IANA is requested to maintain a new number space of "CableLabs Client
Configuration Sub-options", located in the BOOTP-DHCP Parameters
Registry (http://www.iana.org/assignments/bootp-dhcp-parameters).
The initial sub-option codes are described in section 4 of this
document.
IANA is requested to register codes for future CableLabs Client
Configuration Sub-options via an "IETF Consensus" approval policy as
described in RFC 2434 [2].
Beser & Duffy Standards Track [Page 9]
RFC 3495 DHCP Option for CableLabs Clients March 2003
10. Security Considerations
Potential exposures to attack in the DHCP protocol are discussed in
section 7 of the DHCP protocol specification [6] and in
Authentication for DHCP Messages [9].
The CCC option can be used to misdirect network traffic by providing
incorrect DHCP server addresses, incorrect provisioning server
addresses, and incorrect Kerberos realm names to a Cablelabs client
device. This misdirection can lead to several threat scenarios. A
Denial of Service (DoS) attack can result from address information
being simply invalid. A man-in-the-middle attack can be mounted by
providing addresses to a potential snooper. A malicious TSP can
steal customers from the customer selected TSP, by altering the
Kerberos realm designation.
These threats are mitigated by several factors.
Within the cable delivery architecture required by PacketCable, the
DHCP client is connected to a network through a cable modem and the
CMTS (head-end). The CMTS is explicitly configured with a set of
DHCP servers to which DHCP requests are forwarded. Further, a
correctly configured CMTS will only allow downstream traffic from
specific IP addresses/ranges.
Assuming that server addresses and Kerberos realm name were
successfully spoofed to the point that a malicious client device was
able to contact a KDC, the client device must still present valid
certificates to the KDC before being service enabled. Given the
computational overhead of the certificate validation process, this
situation could present a DoS opportunity.
Finally, it is possible for a malicious (although certified) TSP to
redirect a customer from the customer's selected TSP. It is assumed
that all TSP's permitted onto an access providers network are trusted
entities that will cooperate to insure peaceful coexistence. If a
TSP is found to be redirecting customers, this should be handled as
an administrative matter between the access provider and the TSP.
11. References
11.1. Normative References
[1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[2] Narten, N. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA
Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434, October 1998.
Beser & Duffy Standards Track [Page 10]
RFC 3495 DHCP Option for CableLabs Clients March 2003
[3] Mockapetris, P., "Domain Names - Implementation and
Specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987.
[4] Lemon, T. and S. Cheshire, "Encoding Long Options in the Dynamic
Host Configuration Protocol (DHCPv4)", RFC 3396, November 2002.
[5] Kohl, J. and C. Neuman, "The Kerberos Network Authentication
Service (V5)", RFC 1510, September 1993.
[6] Droms, R., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol", RFC 2131, March
1997.
11.2. Informative References
[7] "PacketCable MTA Device Provisioning Specification", PKT-SP-
PROV-I05-021127. http://www.packetcable.com/specifications.html
[8] "PacketCable Security Specification", PKT-SP-SEC-I07-021127,
http://www.packetcable.com/specifications.html
[9] Droms, R. and W. Arbaugh, "Authentication for DHCP Messages", RFC
3118, June 2001
12. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to extend a heartfelt thanks to all those who
contributed to the development of the PacketCable Provisioning
specifications:
Sumanth Channabasappa (Alopa Networks); Angela Lyda, Rick Morris,
Rodney Osborne (Arris Interactive); Steven Bellovin and Chris Melle
(AT&T); Eugene Nechamkin (Broadcom); John Berg, Maria Stachelek, Matt
Osman (CableLabs); Klaus Hermanns, Azita Kia, Michael Thomas, Paul
Duffy (Cisco); Deepak Patil (Com21); Jeff Ollis, Rick Vetter (General
Instrument/Motorola); Roger Loots, David Walters (Lucent); Peter
Bates (Telcordia); Patrick Meehan (Tellabs); Satish Kumar, Itay
Sherman, Roy Spitzer (Telogy/TI), Aviv Goren (Terayon); Prithivraj
Narayanan (Wipro).
The authors would also like to extend a special "thank you" to Rich
Woundy (Comcast) for his thoughtful inputs.
Beser & Duffy Standards Track [Page 11]
RFC 3495 DHCP Option for CableLabs Clients March 2003
13. Authors' Addresses
Burcak Beser
Juniper Networks
1194 North Matilda Avenue
Sunnyvale, CA, 94089
EMail: burcak@juniper.net
Paul Duffy
Cisco Systems
300 Apollo Drive
Chelmsford, MA, 01824
EMail: paduffy@cisco.com
Beser & Duffy Standards Track [Page 12]
RFC 3495 DHCP Option for CableLabs Clients March 2003
14. Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
English.
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS 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.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Beser & Duffy Standards Track [Page 13]
ERRATA
