wdiff rfc7283.original rfc7283.txt

DHC Working Group
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Y. Cui
Internet-Draft
Request for Comments: 7283 Q. Sun
Updates: 3315 (if approved) Tsinghua University
Intended status:
Category: Standards Track T. Lemon
Expires: September 28, 2014
ISSN: 2070-1721 Nominum, Inc.
March 27,
July 2014

Handling Unknown DHCPv6 Messages
draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-unknown-msg-08

Abstract

DHCPv6 is not specific about handling messages with unknown types.
This memo describes the problems associated with receiving DHCPv6
messages with unknown types, and defines how a DHCPv6 server,
client client,
or relay agent should behave when receiving unknown DHCPv6 messages.
This document also provides advice for authors of future documents defining
that define new messages to be sent from DHCP servers to DHCP relay
agents, and should be read by potential authors of such documents.
agents. This document updates RFC3315. RFC 3315.

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 an Internet Standards Track document.

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

Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for a maximum publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of six months RFC 5741.

Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents obtained 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 28, 2014.
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7283.

This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
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.

This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
Contributions published or made publicly available before November
10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
than English.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2
4. Relay Agent Behavior Update . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4.1. A Valid Message for Constructing a New Relay-forward
Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4.2. Relaying a Message toward the Server . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.3. Relaying a Message toward the Client . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Client and Server Behavior Update . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Contributors . . 6
8. Contributors List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
9. 5
8. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5

1. Introduction

DHCPv6 [RFC3315] provides a framework for conveying IPv6
configuration information to hosts on a TCP/IP network. But
[RFC3315] is not specific about how to deal with messages with
unrecognized types. This document describes the problems associated
with receiving DHCPv6 messages with unknown types, and defines the
behavior of a DHCPv6 server, client client, or relay agent when handling
unknown DHCPv6 messages.

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. Problem Statement

When a relay agent receives a message, it decides to send sends the message
either toward
either the server or toward the client. It The relay agent decides on the
direction to forward based on the message type. Since RFC3315 RFC 3315 was
published
published, new message types have been defined. More such messages Additional message
types may be defined in the future. RFC3315 RFC 3315 does not specify the what
to do when a DHCP agent does not recognize the type of message it has
received. This may lead to relay agents inappropriately dropping
such messages,
these messages and to other DHCP agents inappropriately processing
such
these messages.

In addition, there is no specific requirement for dealing with
unknown messages by the client or server in RFC3315. RFC 3315.

Note that it is expected that most future DHCPv6 messages will not be
used to communicate directly with relay agents (though they may need
to be relayed by relay agents).

4. Relay Agent Behavior Update

Relay agents relay messages toward servers and clients according to
the message type. The Relay-reply message is sent toward the client.
The Relay-forward message and other types of messages are sent toward
the server.

We say "toward the client" and "toward the server" because relay
agents may be chained together, so a relay message may be sent
through multiple relay agents along the path to its destination.
Relay-reply messages specify a destination address; the relay agent
extracts the encapsulated message and sends it to the specified
destination address. Any message other than a Relay-reply does not
have such a specified destination, so it follows the default
forwarding path configured on the relay agent, which is always toward
the server.

The sole purpose of requiring relay agents to relay unknown messages
is to ensure that when legitimate new messages are defined in the
protocol, relay agents, even agents (even if they were manufactured prior to the
definition of these new messages, messages) will, by default, succeed in
relaying such messages.

4.1. A Valid Message for Constructing a New Relay-forward Message

Section 20.1 of [RFC3315] states that:

"When

When a relay agent receives a valid message to be relayed, it
constructs a new Relay-forward message." message.

It does not define which types of messages are valid for constructing
Relay-Forward
Relay-forward messages. In this document, we specify the definition
as follows.

The message is valid for constructing a new Relay-forward message:

(a) if the message is a Relay-forward message, or

(b) if the relay agent recognizes the message type and is not the
intended target, or

New DHCP message types may be defined in the future that are sent,
unsolicited, to relay agents. Relay agents that do not implement
these messages will not recognize such the messages as being intended for
them. A Therefore, a relay agent that implements this specification
will
therefore forward such messages to the DHCP servers to which it is
configured to relay client messages.

At this time, no such message types have been specified. If such a
message is specified in the future, it is possible that this would
result in needless load on DHCP servers. If such a message type is
defined in a future specification, authors may need to consider some a
strategy for identifying non-conforming relays and not sending such
messages to them. those relay agents.

However, since DHCP servers do not respond to unknown messages, this
is unlikely to create significant load, load and therefore is therefore likely to be
unnecessary.

4.2. Relaying a Message toward the Server

If the relay agent receives a Relay-forward message, Section 20.1.2
of [RFC3315] defines the required behavior. If the relay agent
receives messages other than Relay-forward and Relay-reply and the
relay agent does not recognize its message type, it MUST forward them
as is described in Section 20.1.1 of [RFC3315].

4.3. Relaying a Message toward the Client

If the relay agent receives a Relay-reply message, it MUST process
the message as is defined in Section 20.2 of [RFC3315], regardless of
the type of the message encapsulated in the Relay Message Option. option.

5. Client and Server Behavior Update

A client or server MUST silently discard any received DHCPv6 message
with an unknown message type.

6. Security Considerations

This document creates no new security issues that are not already
present in RFC3315. RFC 3315. By explicitly documenting the correct handling
of unknown messages, this document, if implemented, reduces any
security exposure that might result from incorrect handling of
unknown messages. The following issues are issues that could already
be present with section
Section 23 of [RFC3315], but we discuss them in detail here as
guidance for implementors.

As the relay agent will forward all unknown types of DHCPv6 messages,
a malicious attacker can interfere with the relaying function by
constructing fake DHCPv6 messages with an arbitrary type code. The
same problem may happen occur in current DHCPv4 and DHCPv6 practice practice, where
the attacker constructs the fake DHCP message with a known type code.

Clients and servers that implement this specification will discard
unknown DHCPv6 messages. Since RFC3315 RFC 3315 did not specify either relay agent, client
client, or server behavior in the presence of unknown messages, it is
possible that some servers or clients that have not been updated to
conform to this specification might be made will become vulnerable to
client attacks
through the relay agent. agent as a result of this change.

For this reason, we recommend that relay agents, clients clients, and servers
be updated to follow this new specification. However, in most
deployment scenarios, it will be much easier to attack clients
directly than through a relay agent; furthermore, agent. Furthermore, attacks using
unknown message types are already possible on the local wire.

So, in most cases, if clients are not upgraded upgraded, there should be
minimal additional risk; at risk. At sites where only servers and relay
agents can be upgraded, the incremental benefit of doing so most
likely exceeds any risk due to of vulnerable clients.

Nothing in this update should be construed to mean that relay agents
may not be administratively configurable to drop messages based on
the
basis of the message type, for security reasons (e.g., in a firewall).

7. IANA Considerations

This document does not include an IANA request.

8. Contributors List

Many thanks to Bernie Volz, Tomek Mrugalski, Sheng Jiang, Cong Liu Liu,
and Yuchi Chen for their contributions to the document.

8. Normative References

[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

[RFC3315] Droms, R., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins, C.,
and M. Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for
IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, July 2003.

Authors' Addresses

Yong Cui
Tsinghua University
Beijing 100084
P.R.China
P.R. China

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

Qi Sun
Tsinghua University
Beijing 100084
P.R.China
P.R. China

Phone: +86-10-6278-5822
Email:
EMail: sunqi@csnet1.cs.tsinghua.edu.cn

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

Phone: +1-650-381-6000
Email:
EMail: Ted.Lemon@nominum.com