[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]
Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 RFC 4030
DHC Working Group M. Stapp
Internet-Draft Cisco Systems, Inc.
Expires: January 6, 2005 T. Lemon
Nominum, Inc.
July 8, 2004
The Authentication Suboption for the DHCP Relay Agent Option
<draft-ietf-dhc-auth-suboption-04.txt>
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable
patent or other IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed,
and any of which I become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with
RFC 3667.
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 6, 2005.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
The DHCP Relay Agent Information Option (RFC 3046) conveys
information between a DHCP Relay Agent and a DHCP server. This
specification defines an authentication suboption for that option,
containing a keyed hash in its payload. The suboption supports data
integrity and replay protection for relayed DHCP messages.
Stapp & Lemon Expires January 6, 2005 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Authentication Suboption July 2004
Table of Contents
1. Requirements Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. DHCP Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Suboption Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Replay Detection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. The Relay Identifier Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. Computing Authentication Information . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7.1 The HMAC-MD5 Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8. Procedures for Sending Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8.1 Replay Detection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8.2 Packet Preparation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8.3 Checksum Computation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8.4 Sending the Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9. Procedures for Processing Incoming Messages . . . . . . . . 8
9.1 Initial Examination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9.2 Replay Detection Check . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
9.3 Testing the Checksum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
10. Relay Agent Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
10.1 Receiving Messages from Other Relay Agents . . . . . . . . . 10
10.2 Sending Messages to Servers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
10.3 Receiving Messages from Servers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
11. DHCP Server Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
11.1 Receiving Messages from Relay Agents . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
11.2 Sending Reply Messages to Relay Agents . . . . . . . . . . . 10
12. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
13. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
13.1 The Key ID Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
13.2 Protocol Vulnerabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
14. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . 15
Stapp & Lemon Expires January 6, 2005 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Authentication Suboption July 2004
1. 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 in RFC 2119 [2].
2. DHCP Terminology
This document uses the terms "DHCP server" (or "server") and "DHCP
client" (or "client") as defined in RFC 2131 [6]. The term "DHCP
relay agent" refers to a "BOOTP relay agent" as defined in RFC 2131.
3. Introduction
DHCP (RFC 2131 [6]) provides IP addresses and configuration
information for IPv4 clients. It includes a relay-agent capability
(RFC 951 [7], RFC 1542 [8]), in which processes within the network
infrastructure receive broadcast messages from clients and forward
them to servers as unicast messages. In network environments like
DOCSIS data-over-cable and xDSL, for example, it has proven useful
for the relay agent to add information to the DHCP message before
forwarding it, using the relay-agent information option (RFC 3046
[1]). The kind of information that relays add is often used in the
server's decision making about the addresses and configuration
parameters that the client should receive. The way that the
relay-agent data is used in server decision-making tends to make that
data very important, and highlights the importance of the trust
relationship between the relay agent and the server.
The existing DHCP Authentication specification (RFC 3118) [9] only
covers communication between the DHCP client and server. Because
relay-agent information is added after the client has sent its
message, the DHCP Authentication specification explictly excludes
relay-agent data from that authentication.
The goal of this specification is to define methods that a relay
agent can use to:
1. protect the integrity of relayed DHCP messages
2. provide replay protection for those messages
3. leverage existing mechanisms such as DHCP Authentication
In order to meet these goals, we specify a new relay-agent suboption,
the Authentication suboption. The format of this suboption is very
similar to the format of the DHCP Authentication option, and the
specification of the cryptographic methods and hash computation for
the suboption are also similar to that specification.
The Authentication suboption is included by relay agents that wish to
Stapp & Lemon Expires January 6, 2005 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Authentication Suboption July 2004
ensure the integrity of the data they include in the Relay Agent
option. These relay agents are configured with the parameters
necessary to generate cryptographic checksums of the data in the DHCP
messages which they forward to DHCP servers. A DHCP server configured
to process the Authentication suboption uses the information in the
suboption to verify the checksum in the suboption, and continues
processing the relay agent information option only if the checksum is
valid. If the DHCP server sends a response, it includes an
Authentication suboption in its response message. Relay agents test
the checksums in DHCP server responses to decide whether to forward
the responses.
4. Suboption Format
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Code | Length | Algorithm | MBZ | RDM |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Replay Detection (64 bits) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Replay Detection cont. |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Relay Identifier |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| |
| Authentication Information |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The code for the suboption is TBD. The length field includes the
lengths of the algorithm, RDM, and all subsequent suboption fields in
octets.
The Algorithm field defines the algorithm used to generate the
authentication information.
Four bits are reserved for future use. These bits SHOULD be set to
zero, and MUST be not be used when the suboption is processed.
The Replay Detection Method (RDM) field defines the method used to
generate the Replay Detection Data.
The Replay Detection field contains a value used to detect replayed
Stapp & Lemon Expires January 6, 2005 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Authentication Suboption July 2004
messages, interpreted according to the RDM.
The Relay Identifier field is used by relay agents that do not set
giaddr, as described in RFC 3046 [1], Section 2.1.
The Authentication Information field contains the data required to
communicate algorithm-specific parameters, as well as the checksum.
The checksum is usually a digest of the data in the DHCP packet
computed using the method specified by the Algorithm field.
5. Replay Detection
The replay-detection mechanism is based on the notion that a receiver
can determine whether or not a message has a valid replay token
value. The default RDM, with value 1, specifies that the Replay
Detection field contains an increasing counter value. The receiver
associates a replay counter with each sender, and rejects any message
containing an authentication suboption with a Replay Detection
counter value less than or equal to the last valid value. DHCP
servers MAY identify relay agents by giaddr value or by other data in
the message (e.g. data in other relay agent suboptions). Relay agents
identify DHCP servers by source IP address. If the message's replay
detection value is valid, and the checksum is also valid, the
receiver updates its notion of the last valid replay counter value
associated with the sender.
All implementations MUST support the default RDM. Additional methods
may be defined in the future, following the process described in
Section 12.
Receivers SHOULD perform the replay-detection check before testing
the checksum. The keyed hash calculation is likely to be much more
expensive than the replay-detection value check.
DISCUSSION:
This places a burden on the receiver to maintain some run-time
state (the most-recent valid counter value) for each sender, but
the number of members in a DHCP agent-server system is unlikely to
be unmanageably large.
6. The Relay Identifier Field
The Relay Agent Information Option [1] specification permits a relay
agent to add a relay agent option to relayed messages without setting
the giaddr field. In this case, the eventual receiver of the message
needs a stable identifier to use in order to associate per-sender
state such as Key ID and replay-detection counters.
Stapp & Lemon Expires January 6, 2005 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Authentication Suboption July 2004
A relay agent that adds a relay agent information option and sets
giaddr MUST NOT set the Relay ID field. A relay agent that does not
set giaddr MAY be configured to place a value in the Relay ID field.
If the relay agent is configured to use the Relay ID field, it MAY be
configured with a value to use, or it MAY be configured to generate a
value based on some other data, such its MAC or IP addresses. If a
relay generates a Relay ID value it SHOULD select a value that it can
regenerate reliably, e.g. across reboots.
Servers that process an Authentication Suboption SHOULD use the
giaddr value to identify the sender if the giaddr field is set.
Servers MAY be configured to use some other data in the message to
identify the sender. If giaddr is not set, the server SHOULD use the
Relay ID field if it is non-zero. If neither the giaddr nor the Relay
ID field is set, the server MAY be configured to use some other data
in the message, or it MAY increment an error counter.
7. Computing Authentication Information
The Authentication Information field contains a keyed hash, generated
by the sender. All algorithms are defined to process the data in the
DHCP messages in the same way. The sender and receiver compute a hash
across a buffer containing all of the bytes in the DHCP message,
including the fixed DHCP message header, the DHCP options, and the
relay agent suboptions, with the following exceptions. The value of
the 'hops' field MUST be set to zero for the computation, because its
value may be changed in transmission. The value of the 'giaddr' field
MUST also be set to zero for the computation because it may be
modified in networks where one relay agent adds the relay agent
option but another relay agent sets 'giaddr' (see RFC 3046, section
2.1). In addition, because the relay agent option itself is included
in the computation, the 'authentication information' field in the
Authentication suboption is set to all zeroes. The relay agent option
length, the Authentication suboption length and other Authentication
suboption fields are all included in the computation.
All implementations MUST support Algorithm 1, the HMAC-MD5 algorithm.
Additional algorithms may be defined in the future, following the
process described in Section 12.
7.1 The HMAC-MD5 Algorithm
Algorithm 1 is assigned to the HMAC [3] protocol, using the MD5 [4]
hash function. This algorithm requires that a shared secret key be
configured at the relay agent and the DHCP server. A 32-bit Key
Identifier is associated with each shared key, and this identifier is
carried in the first 4 bytes of the Authentication Information field
of the Authentication suboption. The HMAC-MD5 computation generates a
Stapp & Lemon Expires January 6, 2005 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Authentication Suboption July 2004
16-byte hash value, which is placed in the Authentication Information
field after the Key ID.
The format of the Authentication suboption when Algorithm 1 is used
is:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Code | 34 |0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1| MBZ | RDM |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Replay Detection (64 bits) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Replay Detection cont. |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Relay Identifier |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Key ID (32 bits) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| HMAC-MD5 (128 bits) |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The suboption length is 34. The RDM and Replay Detection fields are
as specified in Section 5. The Relay ID field is set as specified in
Section 6. The Key ID is set by the sender to the ID of the key used
in computing the checksum, as an integer value in network byte-order.
The HMAC result follows the Key ID.
The Key ID exists only to allow the sender and receiver to specify a
shared secret in cases where more than one secret is in use among a
network's relays and DHCP servers. The Key ID values are entirely a
matter of local configuration; they only need to be locally unique.
This specification does not define any semantics or impose any
requirements on this algorithm's Key ID values.
8. Procedures for Sending Messages
8.1 Replay Detection
The sender obtains a replay-detection counter value to use, based on
the RDM it is using. If the sender is using RDM 1, the default RDM,
the value MUST be greater than any previously-sent value.
Stapp & Lemon Expires January 6, 2005 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Authentication Suboption July 2004
8.2 Packet Preparation
The sender sets the 'giaddr' field and the 'hops' field to all
zeroes. The sender appends the relay agent information option to the
client's packet, including the Authentication suboption. The sender
selects an appropriate Replay Detection value. The sender places its
identifier into the Relay ID field, if necessary, or sets the field
to all zeroes. The sender sets the suboption length, places the
Replay Detection value into the Replay Detection field of the
suboption, and sets the algorithm to the algorithm number that it is
using. If the sender is using HMAC-MD5, it sets the Key ID field to
the appropriate value. The sender sets the field which will contain
the checksum to all zeroes. Other algorithms may specify additional
preparation steps.
8.3 Checksum Computation
The sender computes the checksum across the entire DHCP message,
using the algorithm it has selected. The sender places the result of
the computation into the Authentication Information field of the
Authentication suboption.
8.4 Sending the Message
The sender restores the values of the 'hops' and 'giaddr' fields, and
sends the message.
9. Procedures for Processing Incoming Messages
9.1 Initial Examination
The receiver examines the message, the value of the giaddr field, and
determines whether the packet includes the relay agent information
option. The receiver uses its configuration to determine whether it
should expect an Authentication suboption. The receiver MUST support
configuration that allows it to drop incoming messages that do not
contain a valid relay agent information option and Authentication
suboption.
If the receiver determines that the Authentication suboption is
present and that it should process the suboption, it uses the data in
the message to determine which algorithm, key, and RDM to use in
validating the message. If the receiver cannot determine which
algorithm, key, and RDM to use, or if it does not support the value
indicated in the message, it SHOULD drop the message. Because this
situation could indicate a misconfiguration which could deny service
to clients, receivers MAY attempt to notify their administrators or
log an error message.
Stapp & Lemon Expires January 6, 2005 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Authentication Suboption July 2004
9.2 Replay Detection Check
The receiver examines the RDM field. Receivers MUST discard messages
containing RDM values that they do not support. Because this may
indicate a misconfiguration at the sender, an attempt SHOULD be made
to indicate this condition to the administrator, by incrementing an
error counter or writing a log message. If the receiver supports the
RDM, it examines the value in the Replay Detection field using the
procedures in the RDM and in Section 5. If the Replay value is not
valid, the receiver MUST drop the message.
Note that the receiver MUST NOT update its notion of the last valid
Replay Detection value for the sender at this point. Until the
checksum has been tested, the Replay Detection field cannot be
trusted. If the receiver trusts the Replay Detection value without
testing the checksum, a malicious host could send a replayed message
with a Replay Detection value that was very high, tricking the
receiver into rejecting legitimate values from the sender.
9.3 Testing the Checksum
The receiver prepares the packet in order to test the checksum by
setting the 'giaddr' and 'hops' fields to zero, and setting the
Authentication Information field of the suboption to all zeroes.
Using the algorithm and key associated with the sender, the receiver
computes a hash of the message. The receiver compares the result of
its computation with the value sent by the sender. If the checksums
do not match, the receiver MUST drop the message. Otherwise, the
receiver updates its notion of the last valid Replay Detection value
associated with the sender, and processes the message.
10. Relay Agent Behavior
DHCP Relay agents are typically configured with the addresses of one
or more DHCP servers. A relay agent that implements this suboption
requires an algorithm number for each server, as well as appropriate
credentials (i.e. keys) to use. Relay implementations SHOULD support
configuration which indicates that all relayed messages should
include the authentication suboption. Use of the authentication
suboption SHOULD be disabled by default. Relay agents MAY support
configuration that indicates that certain destination servers support
the authentication suboption, while other servers do not. Relay
agents MAY support configuration of a single algorithm number and key
to be used with all DHCP servers, or they MAY support configuration
of different algorithms and keys for each server.
Stapp & Lemon Expires January 6, 2005 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Authentication Suboption July 2004
10.1 Receiving Messages from Other Relay Agents
There are network configurations in which one relay agent adds the
relay agent option, and then forwards the DHCP message to another
relay agent. For example, a layer-2 switch might be directly
connected to a client, and it might forward messages to an
aggregating router, which sets giaddr and then forwards the message
to a DHCP server. When a DHCP relay which implements the
Authentication suboption receives a message, it MAY use the
procedures in Section 9 to verify the source of the message before
forwarding it.
10.2 Sending Messages to Servers
When the relay agent receives a broadcast packet from a client, it
determines which DHCP servers (or other relay agents) should receive
copies of the message. If the relay agent is configured to include
the Authentication suboption, it determines which Algorithm and RDM
to use, and then it performs the steps in Section 8.
10.3 Receiving Messages from Servers
When the relay agent receives a message, it determines from its
configuration whether it expects the message to contain a relay agent
information option and an Authentication suboption. The relay agent
MAY be configured to drop response messages that do not contain the
Authentication suboption. The relay agent then follows the procedures
in Section 9.
11. DHCP Server Behavior
DHCP servers may interact with multiple relay agents. Server
implementations MAY support configuration that associates the same
algorithm and key with all relay agents. Servers MAY support
configuration which specifies the algorithm and key to use with each
relay agent individually.
11.1 Receiving Messages from Relay Agents
When a DHCP server which implements the Authentication suboption
receives a message, it performs the steps in Section 9.
11.2 Sending Reply Messages to Relay Agents
When the server has prepared a reply message, it uses the incoming
request message and its configuration to determine whether it should
include a relay agent information option and an Authentication
suboption. If the server is configured to include the Authentication
Stapp & Lemon Expires January 6, 2005 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Authentication Suboption July 2004
suboption, it determines which Algorithm and RDM to use, and then
performs the steps in Section 8.
DISCUSSION:
This server behavior represents a slight variance from RFC 3046
[1], Section 2.2. The Authentication suboption is not echoed back
from the server to the relay: the server generates its own
suboption.
12. IANA Considerations
Section 4 defines a new suboption for the DHCP relay agent option,
called the Authentication Suboption. IANA is requested to allocate a
new suboption code from the relay agent option suboption number
space.
This specification introduces two new number-spaces for the
Authentication suboption's 'Algorithm' and 'Replay Detection Method'
fields. These number spaces are to be created and maintained by IANA.
The Algorithm identifier is a one-byte value. Algorithm value 0 is
reserved. Algorithm value 1 is assigned to the HMAC-MD5 keyed hash as
defined in Section 7.1. Additional algorithm values will be allocated
and assigned through IETF consensus, as defined in RFC 2434 [5].
The RDM identifier is a four-bit value. RDM value 0 is reserved. RDM
value 1 is assigned to the use of a monotonically increasing counter
value as defined in Section 5. Additional RDM values will be
allocated and assigned through IETF consensus, as defined in RFC 2434
[5].
13. Security Considerations
This specification describes a protocol to add source authentication
and message integrity protection to the messages between DHCP relay
agents and DHCP servers.
The use of this protocol imposes a new computational burden on relay
agents and servers, because they must perform cryptographic hash
calculations when they send and receive messages. This burden may add
latency to DHCP message exchanges. Because relay agents are involved
when clients reboot, periods of very high reboot activity will result
in the largest number of messages which have to be processed. During
a cable MSO head-end reboot event, for example, the time required for
all clients to be served may increase.
Stapp & Lemon Expires January 6, 2005 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Authentication Suboption July 2004
13.1 The Key ID Field
The Authentication suboption contains a four-byte Key ID, following
the example of the DHCP Authentication RFC. Other authentication
protocols, like DNS TSIG [10], use a key name. A key name is more
flexible and potentially more human-readable than a key id. DHCP
servers may well be configured to use key names for DNS updates using
TSIG, so it might simplify DHCP server configuration if some of the
key-management for both protocols could be shared.
On the other hand, it is crucial to minimize the size expansion
caused by the introduction of the relay agent information option.
Named keys would require more physical space, and would entail more
complex suboption encoding and parsing implementations. These
considerations have led us to specify a fixed-length Key ID instead
of a variable-length key name.
13.2 Protocol Vulnerabilities
Because DHCP is a UDP protocol, messages between relays and servers
may be delivered in a different order than the order in which they
were generated. The replay-detection mechanism will cause receivers
to drop packets which are delivered 'late', leading to client
retries. The retry mechanisms which most clients implement should not
cause this to be an enormous issue, but it will cause senders to do
computational work which will be wasted if their messages are
re-ordered.
The DHC WG has developed two documents describing authentication of
DHCP relay agent options to accommodate the requirements of different
deployment scenarios: this document and Authentication of Relay Agent
Options Using IPsec [11]. As we note in Section 11, the
Authentication suboption can be used without pairwise keys between
each relay and each DHCP server. In deployments where IPsec is
readily available and pairwise keys can be managed efficiently, the
use of IPsec as described in that document may be appropriate. If
IPsec is not available or there are multiple relay agents for which
multiple keys must be managed, the protocol described in this
document may be appropriate. As is the case whenever two
alternatives are available, local network administration can choose
whichever is more appropriate. Because the relay agents and the DHCP
server are all in the same administrative domain, the appropriate
mechanism can be configured on all interoperating DHCP server
elements.
14. Acknowledgements
The need for this specification was made clear by comments made by
Stapp & Lemon Expires January 6, 2005 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Authentication Suboption July 2004
Thomas Narten and John Schnizlein, and the use of the DHCP
Authentication option format was suggested by Josh Littlefield, at
IETF 53.
Normative References
[1] Patrick, M., "DHCP Relay Agent Information Option", RFC 3046,
January 2001.
[2] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997.
[3] Krawczyk, H., Bellare, M. and R. Canetti, "HMAC: Keyed-Hashing
for Message Authentication", RFC 2104, February 1997.
[4] Rivest, R., "The MD5 Message Digest Algorithm", RFC 1321, April
1992.
[5] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA
Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 2434, October 1998.
Informative References
[6] Droms, R., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol", RFC 2131,
March 1997.
[7] Croft, B. and J. Gilmore, "Bootstrap Protocol", RFC 951,
September 1985.
[8] Wimer, W., "Clarifications and Extensions for the Bootstrap
Protocol", RFC 1542, October 1993.
[9] Droms, R. and W. Arbaugh, "Authentication for DHCP Messages",
RFC 3118, June 2001.
[10] Vixie, P., Gudmundsson, O., Eastlake, D. and B. Wellington,
"Secret Key Transaction Authentication for DNS (TSIG)", RFC
2845, May 2000.
[11] Droms, R., "Authentication of Relay Agent Options Using IPsec
(draft-ietf-dhc-relay-agent-ipsec-*.txt)", February 2004.
Stapp & Lemon Expires January 6, 2005 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Authentication Suboption July 2004
Authors' Addresses
Mark Stapp
Cisco Systems, Inc.
1414 Massachusetts Ave.
Boxborough, MA 01719
USA
Phone: 978.936.0000
EMail: mjs@cisco.com
Ted Lemon
Nominum, Inc.
950 Charter St.
Redwood City, CA 94063
USA
EMail: Ted.Lemon@nominum.com
Stapp & Lemon Expires January 6, 2005 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Authentication Suboption July 2004
Intellectual Property Statement
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 IETF's procedures with respect to rights in IETF 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
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Disclaimer of Validity
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.
Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). 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.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Stapp & Lemon Expires January 6, 2005 [Page 15]
Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129b, available from
https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/