[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: (draft-cui-dhc-dhcpv4-over-ipv6) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09

Network Working Group                                             Y. Cui
Internet-Draft                                                     P. Wu
Intended status: Informational                                     J. Wu
Expires: September 21, 2013                          Tsinghua University
                                                                T. Lemon
                                                           Nominum, Inc.
                                                          March 20, 2013


                       DHCPv4 over IPv6 Transport
                   draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-ipv6-06

Abstract

   In IPv6 networks, there remains a need to provide IPv4 service for
   some residual devices.  This document describes a mechanism for
   allocating IPv4 addresses to such devices, using DHCPv4 with an IPv6
   transport.  It is done by putting a special relay agent function
   (Client Relay Agent) on the client side, as well as extending the
   behavior of the server; in the case where DHCP server only supports
   IPv4 transport, a relay agent is extended to support IPv6 transport
   (IPv6-Transport Relay Agent) and relay DHCP traffic for the server,
   with a new Relay Agent Information sub-option added to carry the IPv6
   address of the Client Relay Agent.

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   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."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on September 21, 2013.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2013 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



Cui, et al.            Expires September 21, 2013               [Page 1]


Internet-Draft              DHCPv4 over IPv6                  March 2013


   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Requirements Language  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   3.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   4.  Protocol Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   5.  Client Relay Agent IPv6 Address Sub-option . . . . . . . . . .  6
   6.  Client Relay Agent Behavior  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   7.  IPv6-Transport Server Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   8.  IPv6-Transport Relay Agent Behavior  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   9.  Security Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   10. IANA consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   11. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     12.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     12.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   Appendix A.  Motivation for selecting this particular solution . . 10
     A.1.   Configuring IPv4 with DHCPv6  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     A.2.   Tunnel DHCPv4 over IPv6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     A.3.   DHCPv4 relayed over IPv6  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   Appendix B.  Discussion on One Host Retrieving Multiple
                Addresses through One CRA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13


















Cui, et al.            Expires September 21, 2013               [Page 2]


Internet-Draft              DHCPv4 over IPv6                  March 2013


1.  Introduction

   DHCPv4 [RFC2131] was not designed with IPv6 in mind: DHCPv4 cannot
   operate on an IPv6 network.  However, as dual-stack networks become a
   reality, the need arises to allocate IPv4 addresses in an IPv6
   environment.  To meet this demand, this document extends the DHCPv4
   protocol to allow the use of an IPv6 network for transport.

   A typical scenario that probably requires this feature is IPv4-over-
   IPv6 hub and spoke tunnel [RFC4925].  In this scenario, IPv4-over-
   IPv6 tunnel is used to provide IPv4 connectivity to end users (hosts
   or end networks) across an IPv6 network.  If the IPv4 addresses of
   the end users are provisioned by the concentrator side, then the
   provisioning process should be able to cross the IPv6 network.  One
   such tunnel mechanism is demonstrated in
   [I-D.ietf-softwire-public-4over6].  DHCPv4 over IPv6 would be a
   generic solution for this scenario.


2.  Requirements Language

   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 [RFC2119].


3.  Terminology

   This document makes use of the following terms:

   o  DHCPv4: IPv4 Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol [RFC2131].

   o  Client Relay Agent(CRA): a special DHCPv4 Relay Agent which relays
      between DHCPv4 client and DHCPv4 server using an IPv6 network.  A
      CRA either sits on the same, IPv6-accessible host with the DHCPv4
      client, or sits on the same link with the host running DHCPv4
      client.

   o  Host Client Relay Agent(HCRA): a CRA which sits on the same, IPv6-
      accessible host with the DHCPv4 client.

   o  On-Link Client Relay Agent(LCRA): a CRA which sits on the same
      link with the host that runs DHCPv4 client.

   o  IPv6-Transport Server(TSV): a DHCPv4 Server that supports IPv6
      transport.  TSV listens on IPv6 for incoming DHCPv4 messages, and
      sends DHCPv4 messages in IPv6 packets.




Cui, et al.            Expires September 21, 2013               [Page 3]


Internet-Draft              DHCPv4 over IPv6                  March 2013


   o  IPv6-Transport Relay Agent(TRA): a DHCPv4 Relay Agent that
      supports IPv6 transport.  TRA sits on a machine which has both
      IPv6 and IPv4 connectivity, and relays DHCP messages between CRA
      and regular DHCPv4 server.  Unlike CRA, TRA sits on the remote end
      of IPv6 network, and communicates with DHCPv4 server through IPv4.

   o  Client Relay Agent IPv6 Address Sub-option (CRA6ADDR sub-option):
      a new sub-option of the DHCP Relay Agent Information Option
      [RFC3046], defined in this document, which is used to carry the
      IPv6 address of the CRA.


4.  Protocol Summary

   The scenario for DHCPv4 over IPv6 transport is shown in Figure 1.
   DHCPv4 clients and DHCPv4 server/relay are separated by an IPv6
   network in the middle.  DHCP messages between a client and the
   server/relay cannot naturally be forwarded to each other because they
   are IPv4 UDP packets, either unicast or broadcast.  To bridge this
   gap, both the client side and the server/relay side must enable
   DHCPv4 over IPv6 transport.  More precisely, they must support
   delivering and receiving DHCP messages in IPv6 UDP packets and
   thereby traverse the IPv6 network.

   On the client side, a special relay agent called Client Relay Agent
   is placed on the same host with the client, or on the link of the
   host.  CRA is used to relay DHCP messages from the client to the
   server, and from the server to the client.  CRA sends DHCPv4 messages
   to the server through unicast IPv6 UDP, and receives unicast IPv6 UDP
   packets with the DHCPv4 messages from the server.  By using CRA, no
   extension is required on the DHCP client.


        +-------------------------+
     +------+                     |
     |DHCPv4|                     |
     |Client|                 +-------+
     +------+                 |DHCPv4 |
        |      IPv6 Network   |Server/|
     +------+                 |Relay  |
     |DHCPv4|                 +-------+
     |Client|                     |
     +------+                     |
        +-------------------------+


   Figure 1 Scenario of DHCPv4 over IPv6 Transport




Cui, et al.            Expires September 21, 2013               [Page 4]


Internet-Draft              DHCPv4 over IPv6                  March 2013


   The IPv6-Transport DHCPv4 server can receive DHCP messages delivered
   in IPv6 UDP from CRA, and send out DHCP messages to CRA using IPv6
   UDP (figure 2(a)).  TSV should send DHCP messages to the IPv6 address
   from which it receives relevant DHCP messages earlier.

   When CRAs communicate with an IPv6-Transport Relay Agent rather than
   with a server directly, the situation becomes a little more
   complicated.  Besides the IPv6 communication with CRA, TRA also
   communicates with a regular DHCPv4 server through IPv4.  Therefore,
   when TRA relays DHCP messages between a CRA and the DHCPv4 server, it
   receives DHCP message from the CRA in IPv6 and sends it to the server
   in IPv4, as well as receives DHCP message from the server in IPv4 and
   sends it to the CRA in IPv6.

   TRA sends the IPv6 address of the CRA to the DHCP server using the
   Client Relay Agent IPv6 Address suboption, defined in this document.
   The DHCP server returns this suboption to the TRA as required in
   [RFC3046].  The TRA then uses the returned CRA6ADDR suboption to
   determine the destination address to which to relay the response.


     +------+                +------+
     |client|  IPv6 network  |TSV   |
     |+HCRA |----------------|      |
     +------+                +------+

     +------+  +------+                +------+
     |client|  |LCRA  |  IPv6 network  |TSV   |
     |      |--|      |----------------|      |
     +------+  +------+                +------+
     (a)client--server case

     +------+                +------+              +------+
     |client|  IPv6 network  |TRA   | IPv4 network |server|
     |+HCRA |----------------|      |--------------|      |
     +------+                +------+              +------+

     +------+  +------+                +------+              +------+
     |client|  |LCRA  |  IPv6 network  |TRA   | IPv4 network |server|
     |      |--|      |----------------|      |--------------|      |
     +------+  +------+                +------+              +------+

     (b)client--relay--server case


   Figure 2 Protocol Summary





Cui, et al.            Expires September 21, 2013               [Page 5]


Internet-Draft              DHCPv4 over IPv6                  March 2013


5.  Client Relay Agent IPv6 Address Sub-option

   The CRA6ADDR suboption is a suboption of the Relay Agent Information
   Option [RFC3046].  It encodes the IPv6 address of the machine from
   which a DHCPv4-in-IPv6 CRA-to-TRA message was received.  It is used
   by the TRA to relay DHCPv4 replies back to the proper CRA.  The TRA
   uses the IPv6 address encoded in this suboption as the destination
   IPv6 address when relaying a DHCPv4 message from the DHCP server to
   the CRA.

   The CRA6ADDR sub-option has a fixed length of 18 octets.  The SubOpt
   code is tbd by IANA, the length field is 16, and the following 16
   octets contain the CRA IPv6 address.


             SubOpt   Len     Agent Remote ID
            +------+------+------+------+------+-     -+------+
            | tbd  |  16  |  a1  |  a2  |  a3  |  ...  |  a16 |
            +------+------+------+------+------+-     -+------+


   Figure 3 Client Relay Agent IPv6 Address Sub-option format


6.  Client Relay Agent Behavior

   A Client Relay Agent sits on the same host with the DHCPv4 client
   (HCRA), or on the same link as the host (LCRA).  CRA listens for DHCP
   packets on IPv4 on port 67, and also listens for DHCP packets on IPv6
   on port 67.

   A CRA is configured with one or more IPv6 addresses of TSV/TRA, using
   a DHCPv6 option or some other mechanism.  The CRA cannot forward
   DHCPv4 messages before it is configured with an IPv6 address itself,
   so to function properly, the IPv6 address for the CRA SHOULD be
   configured before the DHCPv4 client starts.  The CRA SHOULD use a
   global IPv6 address.

   When the CRA receives any DHCP message on IPv4 with BOOTP op field
   set to 1, it forwards the message over UDP on IPv6 using a standard
   DHCP message format, with source port 67 and destination port 67.
   The CRA forwards the message to each TSV or TRA address with which it
   is configured.

   When the CRA receives any message on IPv6 with BOOTP op field set to
   2, the CRA checks to see if the message contains option 82.  If it
   does, the CRA silently discards the message.  Otherwise, it relays
   the message to the DHCP client using IPv4.



Cui, et al.            Expires September 21, 2013               [Page 6]


Internet-Draft              DHCPv4 over IPv6                  March 2013


   When the CRA receives any message on IPv6 with BOOTP op field set to
   4, it decapsulates the message as specified in DHCPv4 Relay Agent
   Encapsulation [I-D.ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-relay-encapsulation].  If the CRA
   does not support encapsulation, it MUST silently discard the message.

   The LCRA or HCRA MUST NOT use the Relay Agent Information Option
   [RFC3046].  If either type of CRA needs to send relay agent options,
   it MUST use relay agent encapsulation as defined in
   [I-D.ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-relay-encapsulation].

   An HCRA MUST only serve the client inside the same host, while the
   LCRA SHOULD serve any client on the link.  When the IPv6 address of
   TSV/TRA is provisioned to the host running the DHCP client, it uses
   HCRA; else the client depends on LCRA.  A HCRA serves only one link;
   the multiple link case MUST be handled by multiple HCRA instances.  A
   LCRA does not necessarily need an IPv4 address, though it may be
   configured with one.

   In HCRA case, the DHCPv6 client (or other IPv6 configuration
   processes), DHCPv4 client and CRA runs on the same physical
   interface.  If possible, the host running the DHCPv4 client and CRA
   SHOULD defer the operation of the DHCPv4 client until an IPv6 address
   of the interface has been acquired, as well as the TSV/TRA address
   information.  If this is not done, the DHCPv4 client may send several
   messages that the CRA cannot relay, and this could result in long
   delays before the DHCPv4 client actually gets an IPv4 address.


7.  IPv6-Transport Server Behavior

   To support IPv6 transport, the behavior of DHCPv4 server is extended.
   The IPv6-Transport Server can listen on IPv6 port 67 for DHCPv4
   messages, and send DHCPv4 messages through IPv6.

   A TSV listens for DHCP messages on IPv6 UDP port 67 and IPv4 UDP port
   67.  When it receives a DHCP message on IPv6, it MUST retain the IPv6
   source address of that message until it has sent a response.  When it
   sends a response, it MUST send the response to this IPv6 address,
   with destination port 67.

   The TSV MUST send a server identifier option [RFC2132] containing an
   IPv4 address which will be reachable from the client once the
   residual IPv4 service is set up.  This follows the server id option
   requirement in [RFC2131].

   The rest of TSV DHCP process is the same with normal DHCPv4 server.
   A TSV MUST also listen on IPv4 UDP port 67 like a normal DHCPv4
   server, and process IPv4 DHCPv4 messages normally.  This requirement



Cui, et al.            Expires September 21, 2013               [Page 7]


Internet-Draft              DHCPv4 over IPv6                  March 2013


   exists because when a DHCPv4 client renews, it sends its renewal
   messages directly to the server, rather than broadcasting them.

   Because the CRA may use relay agent encapsulation
   [I-D.ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-relay-encapsulation], the TSV SHOULD support it.
   A TSV that does not support it will not interoperate with a CRA that
   sends relay agent options.


8.  IPv6-Transport Relay Agent Behavior

   An IPv6-Transport Relay Agent sits between IPv6 network and IPv4
   network, and relays DHCPv4 message between CRAs and IPv4-only DHCPv4
   server.  The communication between CRAs and the TRA uses IPv6, while
   the communication between the TRA and the server uses IPv4.  A TRA
   listens on IPv6 UDP port 67 for DHCP messages with BOOTP op field set
   to 1 or 3, as well as IPv4 UDP port 67 for DHCP messages with BOOTP
   op field set to 2 or 4.

   When relaying a DHCP message from CRA to server, TRA MUST add a
   CRA6ADDR suboption.  The TRA sets the contents of this suboption to
   the IPv6 source address of the message.  The TRA MUST also store one
   its own IPv4 addresses in the giaddr field of the DHCP message.  The
   TRA MAY include a Link Selection sub-option [RFC3527] to indicate to
   the DHCP server which link to use when choosing an IP address.  If
   the received message is a RELAYFORWARD message, the TRA MUST
   encapsulate the message in a new RELAYFORWARD message and store the
   CRA6ADDR in the new relay segment.  If it is some other message, the
   TRA SHOULD append a Relay Agent Information Option as described in
   [RFC3046], but MAY encapsulate it in the same way as RELAYFORWARD
   message instead.

   When receiving a DHCP message from the DHCP server, if the message
   contains no CRA6ADDR suboption, the TRA MUST discard the message.
   Otherwise, it processes it as required by [RFC3046] and
   [I-D.ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-relay-encapsulation], and forwards it to the
   IPv6 address recorded in the CRA6ADDR sub-option, with source port 67
   and destination port number 67.


9.  Security Consideration

   This mechanism may rise a new form of DHCP protocol attack.  A
   malicious attacker in IPv6 can interference with the DHCPv4 process
   by inject fake DHCPv4-in-IPv6 messages which will be handled by TSV
   or TRA.  However, the damage is the same with the known DHCPv4 attack
   happened in IPv4.  The only difference is the attacker and the victim
   could locate in different address families.



Cui, et al.            Expires September 21, 2013               [Page 8]


Internet-Draft              DHCPv4 over IPv6                  March 2013


   Another impact is DHCP filtering.  There are firewalls today capable
   of filtering DHCP traffic (DHCPv4 over IPv4 and DHCPv6 over IPv6
   packages).  The DHCP messages with the new, DHCPv4-in-IPv6 style may
   bypass these firewalls.  Nevertheless it is not difficult for them to
   make some slight modification and adapt to the new DHCPv4 message
   pattern.


10.  IANA consideration

   IANA is requested to assign one new sub-option code from the registry
   of DHCP Agent Sub-Option Codes maintained in
   http://www.iana.org/assignments/bootp-dhcp-parameters.  This sub-
   option code will be assigned to the Client Relay Agent IPv6 Address
   Sub-option.


11.  Contributors

   The following gentlemen also contributed to the effort:

      Francis Dupont
      Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.

      Email: fdupont@isc.org



      Tomasz Mrugalski
      Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.

      Email: tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com



      Dmitry Anipko
      Microsoft Corporation

      Email: danipko@microsoft.com


12.  References

12.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-dhc-client-id]
              Swamy, N., Halwasia, G., and S. Unit, "Client Identifier
              Option in DHCP Server Replies",



Cui, et al.            Expires September 21, 2013               [Page 9]


Internet-Draft              DHCPv4 over IPv6                  March 2013


              draft-ietf-dhc-client-id-07 (work in progress),
              November 2012.

   [I-D.ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-relay-encapsulation]
              Lemon, T., Deng, H., and L. Huang, "Relay Agent
              Encapsulation for DHCPv4",
              draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-relay-encapsulation-01 (work in
              progress), July 2011.

   [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.

   [RFC2132]  Alexander, S. and R. Droms, "DHCP Options and BOOTP Vendor
              Extensions", RFC 2132, March 1997.

   [RFC3046]  Patrick, M., "DHCP Relay Agent Information Option",
              RFC 3046, January 2001.

   [RFC3527]  Kinnear, K., Stapp, M., Johnson, R., and J. Kumarasamy,
              "Link Selection sub-option for the Relay Agent Information
              Option for DHCPv4", RFC 3527, April 2003.

   [RFC4361]  Lemon, T. and B. Sommerfeld, "Node-specific Client
              Identifiers for Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
              Version Four (DHCPv4)", RFC 4361, February 2006.

   [RFC4925]  Li, X., Dawkins, S., Ward, D., and A. Durand, "Softwire
              Problem Statement", RFC 4925, July 2007.

12.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-softwire-public-4over6]
              Cui, Y., Wu, J., Wu, P., Vautrin, O., and Y. Lee, "Public
              IPv4 over IPv6 Access Network",
              draft-ietf-softwire-public-4over6-05 (work in progress),
              February 2013.


Appendix A.  Motivation for selecting this particular solution

   We considered three possible solutions to the problem of configuring
   IPv4 addresses on an IPv6 network.






Cui, et al.            Expires September 21, 2013              [Page 10]


Internet-Draft              DHCPv4 over IPv6                  March 2013


A.1.  Configuring IPv4 with DHCPv6

   Use DHCPv6 instead of DHCPv4, to provision IPv4-related connectivity.
   In DHCPv6, the provisioned IPv4 address can be embedded into IPv6
   address, or carried within a new option.  Along with that, dedicated
   options are needed to convey IPv4-related information, such as the
   IPv4 address of DNS server, NTP server, etc.  Therefore it will put a
   certain amount of IPv6-unrelated information into DHCPv6 protocol.

   This solution was rejected for two reasons.  First, the DHCPv6
   protocol does not currently provide a mechanism for recording
   bindings between IPv4 addresses and DHCPv6 clients.  Extending DHCPv6
   to provide this functionality would be a substantial change to the
   existing protocol.

   Second, a deliberate choice was made when the DHCPv6 protocol was
   defined to avoid simply copying existing functionality from DHCPv4.
   While it is possible, using DHCPv6, to deliver IPv4 addresses as
   IPv6-encoded IPv4 addresses, it might be necessary to add additional
   DHCPv6 options simply to support IPv4.  These options would then
   remain in the protocol, long after the need for IPv4 has gone.

   By comparison, any extensions to DHCPv4 will naturally be forgotten
   when DHCPv4 is no longer needed.  This means that whatever extensions
   we make to DHCPv4 to solve the problem, we can stop maintaining as
   soon as IPv4 is no longer needed.

A.2.  Tunnel DHCPv4 over IPv6

   Use DHCPv4 for configuration, and tunnel DHCPv4-in-IPv4 messages over
   IPv6.  Unlike the previous approach where DHCPv6 is used for both
   IPv4 and IPv6 connectivity, this approach preserves the separation
   between IPv4 and IPv6 connectivity information.  It maintains the
   IPv4 service without major modifications to IPv6-related provisioning
   resources, and sustains DHCPv4 to be the IPv4-related information
   carrier.

   This approach was not chosen because it adds a requirement for DHCPv4
   to operate over an IPv4-in-IPv6 tunnel.  DHCPv4 clients generally
   operate on broadcast networks, not on tunnels.  To make DHCPv4
   operate over a tunnel would require substantial changes to the DHCPv4
   client, as well as maintaining a tunnel over which to deliver DHCPv4
   traffic.

   This also creates a chicken-and-egg problem: how do we set up an IPv4
   tunnel when we do not know our IPv4 address?  Solutions to these
   problems were proposed, but they require significant changes to the
   DHCP client and significant additional work to make a tunnel that



Cui, et al.            Expires September 21, 2013              [Page 11]


Internet-Draft              DHCPv4 over IPv6                  March 2013


   could carry the DHCP packets.

A.3.  DHCPv4 relayed over IPv6

   Use DHCPv4 for configuration, and extend it to use an IPv6 transport
   for relayed messages.  Essentially this involves a single change to
   the protocol, to allow DHCPv4 servers or relay agents to send and
   receive packets using an IPv6 transport.  No changes are required on
   the client.

   The working group chose this third solution because, of the three, it
   required the fewest changes to the DHCP protocol, so that it was
   easiest to specify and easiest to implement.


Appendix B.  Discussion on One Host Retrieving Multiple Addresses
             through One CRA

   This document is written with the intention of supporting a use case
   where a single DHCP client is configuring a single tunnel endpoint
   per physical link.  The technique described in this document could be
   used by a host needing to configure more than one tunnel endpoint on
   the same physical link, i.e., to retrieve multiple addresses through
   the same CRA.  However, the following additional behavior is REQUIRED
   to support this case.

   DHCP server implementing this specification MUST implement Client
   Identifier Option in DHCP server replies [I-D.ietf-dhc-client-id].

   In general this specification is intended not to require modification
   of DHCP clients.  However, DHCP clients being used to configure
   multiple tunnel endpoints have to be modified; otherwise there is no
   way for such DHCP clients to differentiate between DHCP responses.
   Therefore, in such case, the DHCP client using this specification
   MUST use a different client identifier for each tunnel endpoint being
   configured.  Such DHCP clients MUST examine the response from the
   DHCP server and use the client identifier to differentiate between
   the DHCP client state machines for each tunnel endpoint.

   In order to satisfy the requirement that client identifiers be
   unique, DHCP clients configuring multiple tunnel endpoints MUST
   implement Node-specific Client Identifiers for DHCPv4 [RFC4361].
   Such clients MUST use a different IAID for each tunnel endpoint.

   It is assumed here that every client state machine on a multiple-
   tunnel-endpoint link can hear all the DHCP messages (and subsequently
   accept the messages intended for it).  How this is accomplished is
   left to the implementor.  However, implementations MUST follow this



Cui, et al.            Expires September 21, 2013              [Page 12]


Internet-Draft              DHCPv4 over IPv6                  March 2013


   requirement; otherwise, it will be impossible for multiple tunnel
   endpoints to be successfully configured.  The easiest way to
   accomplish this is to have a single DHCP client process with multiple
   DHCP state machines, and to dispatch each DHCP message to the correct
   DHCP client state machine using the client identifier.  However, this
   is not REQUIRED; any mechanism that results in client state machines
   receiving the messages that are intended for them will suffice.


Authors' Addresses

   Yong Cui
   Tsinghua University
   Department of Computer Science, Tsinghua University
   Beijing  100084
   P.R.China

   Phone: +86-10-6260-3059
   Email: yong@csnet1.cs.tsinghua.edu.cn


   Peng Wu
   Tsinghua University
   Department of Computer Science, Tsinghua University
   Beijing  100084
   P.R.China

   Phone: +86-10-6278-5822
   Email: pengwu.thu@gmail.com


   Jianping Wu
   Tsinghua University
   Department of Computer Science, Tsinghua University
   Beijing  100084
   P.R.China

   Phone: +86-10-6278-5983
   Email: jianping@cernet.edu.cn












Cui, et al.            Expires September 21, 2013              [Page 13]


Internet-Draft              DHCPv4 over IPv6                  March 2013


   Ted Lemon
   Nominum, Inc.
   2000 Seaport Blvd
   Redwood City, CA  94063
   USA

   Phone: +1-650-381-6000
   Email: mellon@nominum.com











































Cui, et al.            Expires September 21, 2013              [Page 14]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129c, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/