--- 1/draft-ietf-dhc-dhcp-dns-08.txt 2006-02-04 23:02:14.000000000 +0100 +++ 2/draft-ietf-dhc-dhcp-dns-09.txt 2006-02-04 23:02:14.000000000 +0100 @@ -1,175 +1,156 @@ Network Working Group Yakov Rekhter -Internet Draft Cisco Systems -Expiration Date: September 1998 March 1998 +INTERNET-DRAFT Mark Stapp + Cisco Systems + + February 1999 + Expires August 1999 Interaction between DHCP and DNS - draft-ietf-dhc-dhcp-dns-08.txt + -1. Status of this Memo +Status of this Memo - This document is an Internet-Draft. 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. + 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 + 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.'' + material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." - To learn the current status of any Internet-Draft, please check the - ``1id-abstracts.txt'' listing contained in the Internet-Drafts Shadow - Directories on ftp.is.co.za (Africa), nic.nordu.net (Europe), - munnari.oz.au (Pacific Rim), ds.internic.net (US East Coast), or - ftp.isi.edu (US West Coast). + The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at + http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt -2. Abstract + The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at + http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. + +Copyright Notice + + Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1999). All Rights Reserved. + +Abstract DHCP provides a powerful mechanism for IP host autoconfiguration. However, the autoconfiguration provided by DHCP does not include updating DNS, and specifically updating the name to address and address to name mappings maintained by DNS. This document specifies how DHCP clients and servers should use the Dynamic DNS Updates mechanism to update the DNS name to address and address to name mapping, so that the mappings for DHCP clients would be consistent with the IP addresses that the clients acquire via DHCP. -3. Terminology - - Throughout this document, the words that are used to define the - significance of particular requirements are capitalized. These words - are: - - - "MUST" - This word or the adjective "REQUIRED" means that the item is an - absolute requirement of this specification. - - - "MUST NOT" - This phrase means that the item is an absolute prohibition of - this specification. - - - "SHOULD" - This word or the adjective "RECOMMENDED" means that there may - exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore this - item, but the full implications should be understood and the - case carefully weighed before choosing a different course. - - - "SHOULD NOT" - This phrase means that there may exist valid reasons in - particular circumstances when the listed behavior is acceptable - or even useful, but the full implications should be understood - and the case carefully weighed before implementing any behavior - described with this label. +1. Terminology - - "MAY" - This word or the adjective "OPTIONAL" means that this item is - truly optional. One vendor may choose to include the item - because a particular marketplace requires it or because it - enhances the product, for example; another vendor may omit the - same item. + 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 [RFC2119]. -4. Interaction between DHCP and DNS +2. Interaction between DHCP and DNS DNS [RFC1034, RFC1035] maintains (among other things) the information about mapping between hosts' Fully Qualified Domain Names (FQDNs) [RFC1594] and IP addresses assigned to the hosts. The information is maintained in two types of Resource Records (RRs): A and PTR. The A RR contains mapping from a FQDN to an IP address; the PTR RR contains mapping from an IP address to a FQDN. DHCP [RFC1541] provides a mechanism by which a host (a DHCP client) could acquire certain configuration information, and specifically its IP address(es). However, DHCP does not provide any mechanisms to update the DNS RRs that contain the information about mapping between the host's FQDN and its IP address(es) (A and PTR RRs). Thus the information maintained by DNS for a DHCP client may be incorrect - a host (the client) could acquire its address by using DHCP, but the A RR for the host's FQDN wouldn't reflect the address that the host acquired, and the PTR RR for the acquired address wouldn't reflect the host's FQDN. - Dynamic DNS Updates [RFC2136] is a mechanism that enables DNS - information to be updated over a network. + Dynamic DNS Updates [RFC2136] is a mechanism that enables DNS infor- + mation to be updated over a network. The Dynamic DNS Update protocol can be used to maintain consistency between the information stored in the A and PTR RRs and the actual address assignment done via DHCP. When a host with a particular FQDN acquires its IP address via DHCP, the A RR associated with the host's FQDN would be updated (by using the Dynamic DNS Updates protocol) to reflect the new address. Likewise, when an IP address gets assigned to a host with a particular FQDN, the PTR RR associated with this address would be updated (using the Dynamic DNS Updates protocol) to reflect the new FQDN. -5. Models of operations +3. Models of operation When a DHCP client acquires a new address, both the A RR (for the client's FQDN) and the PTR RR (for the acquired address) have to be - updated. Therefore, we have two separate Dynamic DNS Update - transactions. Acquiring an address via DHCP involves two entities: a - DHCP client and a DHCP server. In principle each of these entities - could perform none, one, or both of the transactions. However, upon - some introspection one could realize that not all permutations make - sense. This document covers the possible design permutations: + updated. Therefore, we have two separate Dynamic DNS Update transac- + tions. Acquiring an address via DHCP involves two entities: a DHCP + client and a DHCP server. In principle each of these entities could + perform none, one, or both of the transactions. However, upon some + reflection one could realize that not all permutations make sense. + This document covers the possible design permutations: - (1) DHCP client updates the A RR, DHCP server updates the PTR - RR + (1) DHCP client updates the A RR, DHCP server updates the PTR RR (2) DHCP server updates both the A and the PTR RRs One could observe that the only difference between these two cases is whether the FQDN to IP address mapping is updated by a DHCP client or by a DHCP server. The IP address to FQDN mapping is updated by a DHCP server in both cases. The reason these two are important, while others are unlikely, has to do with authority over the respective DNS RRs. A client may be given - authority over mapping it's own A RRs, or that may be restricted to a + authority over mapping its own A RRs, or that may be restricted to a server to prevent the client from listing arbitrary addresses. In all cases, the only reasonable place for the authority over the PTR RRs associated with the address is in the DHCP server that allocates them. -5.1. Client FQDN Option +3.1. Client FQDN Option To update the IP address to FQDN mapping a DHCP server needs to know FQDN of the client to which the server leases the address. To allow the client to convey its FQDN to the server this document defines a new option, called "Client FQDN". The code for this option is 81. Its minimum length is 4. Code Len Flags RCODE1 RCODE2 Domain Name +------+------+------+------+------+------+-- | 81 | n | | | | ... +------+------+------+------+------+------+-- The Flags field allows a DHCP client to indicate to a DHCP server whether (a) the client wants to be responsible for updating the FQDN to IP address mapping (if Flags is set to 0), or (b) the client wants - the server to be responsible for updating the FQDN to IP address - mapping (if Flags is set to 1). The Flags field also allows a DHCP + the server to be responsible for updating the FQDN to IP address map- + ping (if Flags is set to 1). The Flags field also allows a DHCP server to indicate to a DHCP client that the server assumes the responsibility for updating the FQDN to IP address mapping, even if the client wants to be responsible for this update (if Flags is set to 3). The RCODE1 and RCODE2 fields are used by a DHCP server to indicate to a DHCP client the Response Code from Dynamic DNS Updates. The Domain Name part of the option carries FQDN of a client. -5.2. DHCP Client behavior +3.2. DHCP Client behavior The following describes behavior of a DHCP client that implements the Client FQDN option. If a client that owns/maintains is own FQDN wants to be responsible for updating the FQDN to IP address mapping for the FQDN and address(es) used by the client, then the client MUST include the Client FQDN option in the DHCPREQUEST message originated by the client. The Flags field in the option MUST be set to 0. Once the client's DHCP configuration is completed (the client receives a @@ -178,213 +159,442 @@ update for the A RR (associated with the client's FQDN). The update MUST be originated following the procedures described in [RFC2136]. A client that owns/maintains its own FQDN can choose to delegate the responsibility for updating the FQDN to IP address mapping for the FQDN and address(es) used by the client to the server. In order to inform the server of this choice, the client MUST include the Client FQDN option in the DHCPREQUEST message originated by the client. The Flags field in the option MUST be set to 1. In this case, the client MAY supply an FQDN in the Client FQDN option, or it MAY leave that - field empty as a signal to the server to determine an FQDN for the + field empty as a signal to the server to generate an FQDN for the client in any manner the server chooses. A client that delegates the responsibility for updating the FQDN to IP address mapping to a server MAY not receive any indications (either positive or negative) from the server whether the server was - able to perform the update. In this case the client SHOULD use DNS + able to perform the update. In this case the client MAY use a DNS query to check whether the mapping is updated. A client MUST set the RCODE1 and RCODE2 fields in the Client FQDN option to 0 when sending the option. If a client releases its address lease prior to the lease expiration - time, and the client is responsible for updating its A RR(s), the + time and the client is responsible for updating its A RR(s), the client SHOULD delete the A RR (following the procedures described in - [RFC2136]) associated with the leased address before sending DHCP + [RFC2136]) associated with the leased address before sending a DHCP RELEASE message. -5.3. DHCP Server behavior +3.3. DHCP Server behavior When a server receives a DHCPREQUEST message from a client, if the message contains the Client FQDN option, and the server replies to the message with a DHCPACK message, the server SHOULD originate an update for the PTR RR (associated with the address leased to the client). The update MUST be originated following the procedures - described in Section 5.4. The server MAY complete the update before + described in Section 3.4. The server MAY complete the update before the server sends the DHCPACK message to the client. In this case the RCODE from the update [RFC2136] MUST be carried to the client in the RCODE1 field of the Client FQDN option in the DHCPACK message and the RCODE2 field MUST be set to 0. Alternatively, the server MAY send the DHCPACK message to the client without waiting for the update to be completed. In this case the RCODE1 field of the Client FQDN option in the DHCPACK message MUST be set to 255, and the RCODE2 field MUST - be set to 0. The choice between the two alternatives is a local to a - DHCP server matter. + be set to 0. The choice between the two alternatives is entirely up + to the DHCP server. In addition, if the Client FQDN option carried in the DHCPREQUEST message has its Flags field set to 1, then the server MUST originate an update for the A RR (associated with the FQDN carried in the option). The update MUST be originated following the procedures - described in Section 5.4. The server MAY originate the update before + described in Section 3.4. The server MAY originate the update before the server sends the DHCPACK message to the client. In this case the RCODE from the update [RFC2136] MUST be carried to the client in the RCODE2 field of the Client FQDN option in the DHCPACK message. Alternatively the server MAY send the DHCPACK message to the client without waiting for the update to be completed. In this case the RCODE2 field of the Client FQDN option in the DHCKACK message MUST be - set to 255. The choice between the two alternatives is a local to the - server matter. + set to 255. The choice between the two alternatives is entirely up to + the DHCP server. - Even, if the Client FQDN option carried in the DHCPREQUEST message - has its Flags field set to 0 (indicating that the client wants to - update the A RR), the server MAY (under configuration control) update - the A RR. The update MUST be originated following the procedures - described in Section 5.4. The server MAY originate the update before - the server sends the DHCPACK message to the client. In this case the - RCODE from the update [RFC2136] MUST be carried to the client in the - RCODE2 field of the Client FQDN option in the DHCPACK message, and - the Flags field in the Client FQND option MUST be set to 3. - Alternatively, the server MAY send the DHCPACK message to the client - without waiting for the update to be completed. In this case the - RCODE2 field of the Client FQDN option in the DHCKACK message MUST be - set to 255, and the Flags field in the Client FQDN option MUST be set - to 3. The choice between the two alternatives is a local to the - server matter. + Even if the Client FQDN option carried in the DHCPREQUEST message has + its Flags field set to 0 (indicating that the client wants to update + the A RR), the server MAY (at the determination of the local adminis- + trator) update the A RR. The update MUST be originated following the + procedures described in Section 3.4. The server MAY originate the + update before the server sends the DHCPACK message to the client. In + this case the RCODE from the update [RFC2136] MUST be carried to the + client in the RCODE2 field of the Client FQDN option in the DHCPACK + message, and the Flags field in the Client FQND option MUST be set to + 3. Alternatively, the server MAY send the DHCPACK message to the + client without waiting for the update to be completed. In this case + the RCODE2 field of the Client FQDN option in the DHCKACK message + MUST be set to 255, and the Flags field in the Client FQDN option + MUST be set to 3. Whether the DNS update occurs before or after the + DHCPACK is sent is entirely up to the DHCP server. When a server receives a DHCPREQUEST message from a client, and the message contains the Client FQDN option, the server MUST ignore the value carried in the RCODE1 and RCODE2 fields of the option. When a DHCP server sends the Client FQDN option to a client in the DHCPACK message, the server MUST copy the Domain Name fields from the - Client FQDN option that the client sent to the server in the - DHCPREQUEST message. + Client FQDN option that the client sent to the server in the DHCPRE- + QUEST message. If the DHCPREQUST message received by a DHCP server from a DHCP client doesn't carry the Client FQDN option (e.g., the client doesn't implement the Client FQDN option), and the DHCP client acquires its FQDN from a DHCP server (as part of a normal DHCP transaction), then the server MAY be configured to update both A and PTR RRs. The - updates MUST be originated following the procedures described in - Section 5.4. - - If a server originates updates for both the A and PTR RRs, then the - order in which the updates are generated is not significant. + updates MUST be originated following the procedures described in Sec- + tion 3.4. If a server detects that a lease on an address that the server leases to a client expires, the server SHOULD delete the PTR RR associated - with the address. In addition, if the A RR (of the client) was - initially updated by the server, the server SHOULD also delete the A - RR. The deletion MUST follow the procedures described in [RFC2136]. + with the address. In addition, if the A RR (of the client) was ini- + tially updated by the server, the server SHOULD also delete the A RR. + The deletion MUST follow the procedures described in [RFC2136]. If a server terminates a lease on an address prior to the lease expiration time, the server SHOULD delete the PTR RR associated with the address. In addition, if the server (that leased the address) initially updated the A RR (of the client), the server SHOULD also delete the A RR. The deletion MUST follow the procedures described in [RFC2136]. -5.4. Procedures for performing DNS updates +3.4. Procedures for performing DNS updates - When a DHCP server needs to update the PTR RR for a particular IP - address, the server just adds a new PTR RR for that address. + There are two principal issues that need to be addressed concerning A + RR DNS updates: - When a DHCP server needs to update the A RR for a particular FQDN, - the server first has to delete all the A RRs associated with that - FQDN, and then add a new A RR for that FQDN. Note that this rule - precludes the ability to support multi-homed hosts in the scenario - where A RRs are updated by a DHCP server. Therefore, multi-homed - hosts SHOULD perform updates to their A RRs by themselves. + o Name Collisions - Procedures for deleting and adding RRs are described in [RFC2136]. + If the entity updating the A RR (either the DHCP client or DHCP + server) attempts to perform a DNS update with a DNS name that is + already in use, what should be done? In some scenarios these + name collisions are unlikely, in some scenarios they are very + likely: -6. Updating other RRs + 1. Client updates A RR, uses DNSSEC: Name collisions in + this scenario are unlikely (though not impossible), since + for the client to use DNSSEC, it has already received + credentials specific to the name it will add. This implies + that the name has already been allocated (through some + implementation- or organization-specific procedure, and + presumably uniquely) to that client. - The procedures described in this document cover updates only to the A + 2. Client updates A RR, uses some form of TSIG: Name + collisions in this scenario are possible, since the + credentials necessary for the client to update DNS are not + name specific. Thus, for the client to be attempting to + update a unique name requires the existence of some + administrative procedure to ensure client configuration + with unique names. + + 3. Server updates the A RR, uses a name for the client + which is known to the server: Name collisions in this + scenario are likely unless prevented by the server' name + configuration procedures. See Section 7 for security issues + with this form of deployment. + + 4. Server updates the A RR, uses a name supplied by the + client: Name collisions in this scenario are highly + likely, even with administrative procedures designed to + prevent them. (This scenario is a popular one in + real-world deployments in many types of organizations.) + See Section 7 for security issues with this type of + deployment. + + Scenarios 3 and 4 are much more attractive given some form of + DHCP Authentication, but the difficulties remain. + + Scenarios 2, 3, and 4 rely on administrative procedures to + ensure name uniqueness for DNS updates, and these procedures may + break down. Experience has shown that, in fact, these pro- + cedures will break down at least occasionally. The question is + what to do when these procedures break down or, for example in + scenario #4, may not even exist. + + In all cases of name collisions, the desire is to offer two + modes of operation to the administrator of the combined DHCP-DNS + capability: first-update-wins (i.e., the first updating entity + gets the name) or most-recent-update-wins (i.e., the last updat- + ing entity for a name gets the name). + + o Multiple DHCP servers + + If multiple DHCP servers are able to update the same DNS zones, + or if DHCP servers are performing A RR updates on behalf of DHCP + clients, and more than one DHCP server may be able to serve + addresses to the same DHCP clients, the DHCP servers should be + able to provide reasonable DNS name update behavior for DHCP + clients. + + The solution to both of these problems is for the updating entities + (both DHCP clients or DHCP servers) to be able to cooperate when + updating DNS A RRs. + + Specifically, a KEY RR, described in [RFC2065] is used to associate + client ownership information with a DNS name and the A RR associated + with that name. When either a client or server adds an A RR for a + client, it also adds a KEY RR which specifies a unique client iden- + tity (based on a "client specifier" created from the client's + client-id or MAC address: see Appendix A). In this model, only one A + RR is associated with a given DNS name at a time. + + By associating this ownership information with each A RR, cooperating + DNS updating entities may determine whether their client is the first + or last updater of the name (and implement the appropriately config- + ured administrative policy), and DHCP clients which currently have a + host name may move from one DHCP server to another without losing + their DNS name. + + See Appendix A for the details of the use of the KEY RR for this pur- + pose. + + The specific algorithms utilizing the KEY RR to signal client owner- + ship are explained below. The algorithms only work in the case where + the updating entities all cooperate -- this approach is advisory only + and does not substitute for DNS security, nor is it replaced by DNS + security. + +3.4.1. Adding A RRs to DNS + + When a DHCP client or server intends to update an A RR, it first + prepares a DNS UPDATE query which includes as a prerequisite the + assertion that the name does not exist. The update section of the + query attempts to add the new name and its IP address mapping and the + KEY RR with its unique client-identity. + + If this update operation succeeds, the updater can conclude that it + has added a new name whose only RRs are the A and KEY RR records. + The A RR update is now complete (and a client updater is finished, + while a server would then proceed to perform a PTR RR update). + + If the first update operation fails with YXDOMAIN, the updater can + conclude that the intended name is in use. The updater then attempts + to confirm that the DNS name is not being used by some other host. + The updater prepares a second UPDATE query in which the prerequisite + is that the desired name has attached to it a KEY RR whose contents + match the client identity (see Appendix A). The update section of + this query deletes the existing A records on the name, and adds the A + record that matches the DHCP binding and the KEY RR with the client + identity. + + If this query succeeds, the updater can conclude that the current + client was the last user of this name, and that the name now contains + the updated A RR. The A RR update is now complete (and a client + updater is finished, while a server would then proceed to perform a + PTR RR update). + + If the second query fails with NXRRSET, the updater must conclude + that the client's desired name is in use by another host. At this + juncture, the updater can decide (based on some administrative confi- + guration outside of the scope of this document) whether to let the + existing owner of the name keep that name, and to (possibly) perform + some name disambiguation operation on behalf of the current client, + or to 'take-over' the name on behalf of the current client. + + DISCUSSION: + + The updating entity may be configured to allow the existing owner + to keep the name, and to perform disambiguation on the name of the + current client in order to attempt to generate a similar but + unique name for the current client. In this case, once such a + similar name has been generated, the updating entity should res- + tart the process of adding an A RR as specified in this section. + +3.4.2. 2 Adding PTR RR Entries to DNS + + The DHCP server submits a DNS query which deletes all of the PTR RRs + associated with the lease IP address, and adds a PTR RR whose data is + the client's (possibly disambiguated) host name. The server also adds + a KEY RR whose data is the client's client-identity as described in + Appendix A. + +3.4.3. Removing Entries from DNS + + The first rule in removing DNS entries is be sure that an entity + removing a DNS entry is only removing an entry that it added. + + When a lease expires or a DHCP client issues a DHCPRELEASE request, + the DHCP server SHOULD delete the PTR RR that matches the DHCP bind- + ing, if one was successfully added. The server's update query SHOULD + assert that the name in the PTR record matches the name of the client + whose lease has expired or been released. + + The entity chosen to handle the A record for this client (either the + client or the server) SHOULD delete the A record that was added when + the lease was made to the client. + + In order to perform this delete, the updater prepares an UPDATE query + which contains two prerequisites. The first prerequisite asserts + that the KEY RR exists whose data is the client identity described in + Appendix A. The second prerequisite asserts that the data in the A RR + contains the IP address of the lease that has expired or been + released. + + If the query fails, the updater MUST conclude that it cannot delete + the DNS name. It may be that the host whose lease on the server has + expired has moved to another network and obtained a lease from a dif- + ferent server, which has caused the client's A RR to be replaced. It + may also be that some other client has been configured with a name + that matches the name of the DHCP client, and the policy was that the + last client to specify the name would get the name. In this case, + the KEY RR will no longer match the updater's notion of the client- + identity of the host pointed to by the DNS name. + +4. Updating other RRs + + The procedures described in this document only cover updates to the A and PTR RRs. Updating other types of RRs is outside the scope of this document. -7. Security Considerations +5. Security Considerations Whether the client wants to be responsible for updating the FQDN to IP address mapping, or whether the client wants to delegate this responsibility to a server is a local to the client matter. The choice between the two alternatives may be based on a particular security model that is used with the Dynamic DNS Update protocol (e.g., only a client may have sufficient credentials to perform updates to the FQDN to IP address mapping for its FQDN). Whether a DHCP server is always responsible for updating the FQDN to IP address mapping (in addition to updating the IP to FQDN mapping), regarless of the wishes of a DHCP client, is a local to the server matter. The choice between the two alternatives may be based on a particular security model. - The client SHOULD use some form of data origin authentication - procedures (e.g., DNSSEC [DNSSEC]) when performing DNS updates. + The client SHOULD use some form of data origin authentication pro- + cedures (e.g., DNSSEC [DNSSEC]) when performing DNS updates. While the DHCP client SHOULD be the one to update the DNS A record, in certain specialized cases a DHCP server MAY do so instead. In this case, the DHCP server MUST be sure of both the name to use for the client, as well as the identity of the client. In the general case, both of these conditions are not satisfied -- one needs to be mindful of the possibility of MAC address spoofing in - a DHCP packet. It is not difficult for a DHCP server to know - unambiguously the DNS name to use for a client, but only in certain - relatively unusual circumstances will the DHCP server know for sure - the identity of the client. One example of such a circumstance is - where the DHCP client is connected to a network through an MCNS cable + a DHCP packet. It is not difficult for a DHCP server to know unambi- + guously the DNS name to use for a client, but only in certain rela- + tively unusual circumstances will the DHCP server know for sure the + identity of the client. One example of such a circumstance is where + the DHCP client is connected to a network through an MCNS cable modem, and the CMTS (head-end) of the cable modem ensures that MAC address spoofing simply does not occur. Another example where the DHCP server would know the identity of the client would be in a case where it was interacting with a remote access server which encoded a client identification into the DHCP client-id option. In this case, the remote access server as well as the DHCP server would be operating within a trusted environment, and - the DHCP server could trust that the user authentication and - authorization procedure of the remote access server was sufficient, - and would therefore trust the client identification encoded within - the DHCP client-id. + the DHCP server could trust that the user authentication and authori- + zation procedure of the remote access server was sufficient, and + would therefore trust the client identification encoded within the + DHCP client-id. In either of these cases, a DHCP server would be able to correctly enter the DNS A record on behalf of a client, since it would know the name associated with a client (through some administrative procedure outside the scope of this protocol), and it would also know the client's identity in a secure manner. -8. References +6. Appendix A - Use of the KEY RR + + The KEY RR used to hold the DHCP client's identity is formatted as + follows: + + The name of the KEY RR is the name of the A or PTR RR which refers to + the client. + + The flags field is set to 0x42 - that is, the 1 bit and the 6 bit are + set. + + The protocol field is set to 0. + + The algorithm field is set to 254. + + The first byte in the key field contains the length of the client- + identity, and is followed by that number of bytes. If a DHCP client + sent the client-id option in its request, the client-identity MUST be + identical to the data in the client-id option. If a client did not + send the client-id option, the client-identity is constructed from + the htype byte, the hlen byte, and hlen bytes of the client's chaddr + from its request message. + +7. References [RFC1034] P. Mockapetris, "Domain names - concepts and facilities", RFC1034, 11/01/1987 - [RFC1035] P. Mockapetris, "Domain names - implementation and - specification", RFC1035, 11/01/1987 + [RFC1035] P. Mockapetris, "Domain names - implementation and specifi- + cation", RFC1035, 11/01/1987 [RFC2131] R. Droms, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol", RFC2131, March 1997 [RFC1594] A. Marine, J. Reynolds, G. Malkin, "FYI on Questions and - Answer Answers to Commonly asked ``New Internet User'' Questions", - RFC1594, 03/11/1994 + Answer Answers to Commonly asked ``New Internet User'' + Questions", RFC1594, 03/11/1994 [DNSSEC] [RFC2136] P. Vixie, S. Thomson, Y. Rekhter, J. Bound, "Dynamic - Updates in the Domain Name System (DNS UPDATE)", RFC2136, April 1997 + Updates in the Domain Name System (DNS UPDATE)", RFC2136, + April 1997 -9. Acknowledgements + [RFC2119] Bradner, S. "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Require- + ment Levels", RFC 2119. - Many thanks to Mark Beyer, Jim Bound, Ralph Droms, Peter Ford, Edie - Gunter, Kim Kinnear, Stuart Kwan, Ted Lemon, Michael Lewis, Michael - Patton, Mark Stapp, and Glenn Stump for their review and comments. + [RFC2065] D. Eastlake, C. Kaufman, "Domain Name System Security + Extensions", RFC 2065, January 1997. -10. Author Information +8. Acknowledgements + + Many thanks to Mark Beyer, Jim Bound, Ralph Droms, Peter Ford, + Edie Gunter, Kim Kinnear, Stuart Kwan, Ted Lemon, Michael Lewis, + Michael Patton, and Glenn Stump for their review and comments. + +9. Author information Yakov Rekhter - cisco Systems, Inc. + Cisco Systems, Inc. 170 Tasman Dr. San Jose, CA 95134 Phone: (914) 235-2128 email: yakov@cisco.com + Mark Stapp + Cisco Systems + 250 Apollo Drive + Chelmsford, MA 01824 + Phone: (978) 244-8498 + email: mjs@cisco.com + +10. Full Copyright Statement + + Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1999). 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 implmentation may be prepared, copied, + published and distributed, in whole or in part, without restric- + tion 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.