draft-ietf-ip1394-dhcp-03.txt   rfc2855.txt 
Internet-Draft K. Fujisawa
<draft-ietf-ip1394-dhcp-03.txt> Sony Corporation
Expires: August, 2000 February 2000
DHCP for IEEE 1394
Status of this memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance
with all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Network Working Group K. Fujisawa
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that Request for Comments: 2855 Sony Corporation
other groups may also distribute working documents as Category: Standards Track June 2000
Internet-Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six DHCP for IEEE 1394
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 Status of this Memo
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 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 Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000). All Rights Reserved. Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract Abstract
IEEE Std 1394-1995 is a standard for a High Performance Serial Bus. IEEE Std 1394-1995 is a standard for a High Performance Serial Bus.
Since 1394 uses a different link-layer addressing method than Since 1394 uses a different link-layer addressing method than
conventional IEEE802/Ethernet, the usage of some fields must be conventional IEEE802/Ethernet, the usage of some fields must be
clarified to achieve interoperability. clarified to achieve interoperability. This memo describes the 1394
This memo describes the 1394 specific usage of some fields of DHCP specific usage of some fields of DHCP messages.
messages.
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
IEEE Std 1394-1995 is a standard for a High Performance Serial Bus. IEEE Std 1394-1995 is a standard for a High Performance Serial Bus.
IETF IP1394 Working Group specified the method to carry IPv4 IETF IP1394 Working Group specified the method to carry IPv4
datagrams and 1394 ARP packets over an IEEE1394 network [RFC2734]. datagrams and 1394 ARP packets over an IEEE1394 network [RFC2734].
The Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) [RFC2131] provides a The Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) [RFC2131] provides a
framework for passing configuration information to hosts on a TCP/IP framework for passing configuration information to hosts on a TCP/IP
network. network.
Since 1394 uses a different link-layer addressing method than Since 1394 uses a different link-layer addressing method than
conventional IEEE802/Ethernet, the usage of some fields must be conventional IEEE802/Ethernet, the usage of some fields must be
clarified to achieve interoperability. clarified to achieve interoperability. This memo describes the 1394
This memo describes the 1394 specific usage of some fields of DHCP. specific usage of some fields of DHCP. See [RFC2131] for the
See [RFC2131] for the mechanism of DHCP and the explanations of each mechanism of DHCP and the explanations of each field.
field.
This document is a product of the IP1394 working group within the
Internet Engineering Task Force. Comments are solicited and should
be addressed to the working group's mailing list at
ip1394@mailbag.intel.com and/or the author.
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
2. Issues related to 1394 link address 2. Issues related to 1394 link address
With conventional link-layer protocols, such as an Ethernet, the With conventional link-layer protocols, such as an Ethernet, the
'chaddr' (client hardware address) field may be used to return a 'chaddr' (client hardware address) field may be used to return a
reply message from a DHCP server (or relay-agent) to a client. Since reply message from a DHCP server (or relay-agent) to a client. Since
a 1394 link address (node_ID) is transient and will not be consistent a 1394 link address (node_ID) is transient and will not be consistent
across the 1394 bridge, we have chosen not to put it in the 'chaddr' across the 1394 bridge, we have chosen not to put it in the 'chaddr'
field. A DHCP client should request that the server sends a field. A DHCP client should request that the server sends a
broadcast reply by setting the BROADCAST flag when 1394 ARP is not broadcast reply by setting the BROADCAST flag when 1394 ARP is not
possible yet. possible yet.
Note: In general, the use of a broadcast reply is discouraged, Note: In general, the use of a broadcast reply is discouraged, but
but we consider the impact in a 1394 network as a non issue. we consider the impact in a 1394 network as a non issue.
3. 1394 specific usage of DHCP message fields 3. 1394 specific usage of DHCP message fields
Following rules should be used when a DHCP client is connected to Following rules should be used when a DHCP client is connected to an
an IEEE1394 network. IEEE1394 network.
'htype' (hardware address type) MUST be 24 [ARPPARAM]. 'htype' (hardware address type) MUST be 24 [ARPPARAM].
'hlen' (hardware address length) MUST be 0. 'hlen' (hardware address length) MUST be 0.
The 'chaddr' (client hardware address) field is reserved. The sender The 'chaddr' (client hardware address) field is reserved. The sender
MUST set this field to zero, and the recipient and the relay agent MUST set this field to zero, and the recipient and the relay agent
MUST ignore its value on reciept. MUST ignore its value on receipt.
A DHCP client on 1394 SHOULD set a BROADCAST flag in DHCPDISCOVER and A DHCP client on 1394 SHOULD set a BROADCAST flag in DHCPDISCOVER and
DHCPREQUEST messages (and set 'ciaddr' to zero) to ensure that the DHCPREQUEST messages (and set 'ciaddr' to zero) to ensure that the
server (or the relay agent) broadcasts its reply to the client. server (or the relay agent) broadcasts its reply to the client.
Note: As described in [RFC2131], 'ciaddr' MUST be filled in with Note: As described in [RFC2131], 'ciaddr' MUST be filled in with
client's IP address during BOUND, RENEWING or REBINDING state, client's IP address during BOUND, RENEWING or REBINDING state,
therefore, the BROADCAST flag MUST NOT be set. In these cases, therefore, the BROADCAST flag MUST NOT be set. In these cases,
the DHCP server unicasts DHCPACK message to the address in the DHCP server unicasts DHCPACK message to the address in
'ciaddr'. The link address will be resolved by 1394 ARP. 'ciaddr'. The link address will be resolved by 1394 ARP.
'client identifier' option MUST be used in DHCP messages from the 'client identifier' option MUST be used in DHCP messages from the
client to the server due to the lack of the 'chaddr'. 'client client to the server due to the lack of the 'chaddr'. 'client
identifier' option may consist of any data. Because every IP over identifier' option may consist of any data. Because every IP over
1394 node has an EUI-64 (node unique ID) [EUI64], the EUI-64 makes an 1394 node has an EUI-64 (node unique ID), the EUI-64 makes an obvious
obvious 'client identifier'. 1394 clients SHOULD include an EUI-64 'client identifier'. 1394 clients SHOULD include an EUI-64
identifier in the 'client identifier' option. The type value for the identifier in the 'client identifier' option. The type value for the
EUI-64 is 27 [ARPPARAM], and the format is illustrated as follows. EUI-64 is 27 [ARPPARAM], and the format is illustrated as follows.
Code Len Type Client-Identifier Code Len Type Client-Identifier
+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| 61 | 9 | 27 | EUI-64 (node unique ID) | | 61 | 9 | 27 | EUI-64 (node unique ID) |
+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
Note that the use of other 'client identifier' type, such as a fully Note that the use of other 'client identifier' type, such as a fully
qualified domain name (FQDN), is not precluded by this memo. qualified domain name (FQDN), is not precluded by this memo.
For more details, see "9.14. Client-identifier" in [RFC2132]. For more details, see "9.14. Client-identifier" in [RFC2132].
4. Security Considerations 4. Security Considerations
DHCP currently provides no authentication or security mechanisms. DHCP currently provides no authentication or security mechanisms.
Potential exposures to attack are discussed in section 7 of the DHCP Potential exposures to attack are discussed in section 7 of the DHCP
protocol specification [RFC2131]. protocol specification [RFC2131].
A malicious client can falsify its EUI-64 identifier, thus A malicious client can falsify its EUI-64 identifier, thus
masquerading as another client. masquerading as another client.
Acknowledgments Acknowledgments
The author appreciate the members of the Dynamic Host Configuration The author appreciates the members of the Dynamic Host Configuration
working group for their review and valuable comments. Working Group for their review and valuable comments.
References References
[RFC2734] P. Johansson, "IPv4 over IEEE 1394", [RFC2734] Johansson, P., "IPv4 over IEEE 1394", RFC 2734, December
RFC2734, December 1999. 1999.
[RFC2119] S. Bradner, "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", RFC2119, March 1997.
[RFC2131] R. Droms, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol", RFC2131, [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
March 1997. Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2132] S. Alexander, R. Droms, "DHCP Options and BOOTP Vendor [RFC2131] Droms, R., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol", RFC
Extensions", RFC2132, March 1997. 2131, March 1997.
[EUI64] http://standards.ieee.org/regauth/oui/tutorials/EUI64.html [RFC2132] Alexander, S. and R. Droms, "DHCP Options and BOOTP Vendor
Extensions", RFC 2132, March 1997.
[ARPPARAM] http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/iana/assignments/arp-parameters [ARPPARAM] http://www.iana.org/numbers.html
Author's address Author's Address
Kenji Fujisawa Kenji Fujisawa
Sony Corporation Sony Corporation
6-7-35, Kitashinagawa, 6-7-35, Kitashinagawa,
Shinagawa-ku, Tokyo, 141-0001 Japan Shinagawa-ku, Tokyo, 141-0001 Japan
Phone: +81-3-5448-8507 Phone: +81-3-5448-8507
E-mail: fujisawa@sm.sony.co.jp EMail: fujisawa@sm.sony.co.jp
Full Copyright Statement Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000). All Rights Reserved. Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000). All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
skipping to change at line 192 skipping to change at page 5, line 33
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
 End of changes. 24 change blocks. 
70 lines changed or deleted 49 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/