1291 lines
52 KiB
Plaintext
1291 lines
52 KiB
Plaintext
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Network Working Group W. Wimer
|
||
Request for Comments: 1542 Carnegie Mellon University
|
||
Updates: 951 October 1993
|
||
Obsoletes: 1532
|
||
Category: Standards Track
|
||
|
||
|
||
Clarifications and Extensions for the Bootstrap Protocol
|
||
|
||
Status of this Memo
|
||
|
||
This RFC specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
|
||
Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
|
||
improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
|
||
Official Protocol Standards" for the standardization state and status
|
||
of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
|
||
|
||
Abstract
|
||
|
||
Some aspects of the BOOTP protocol were rather loosely defined in its
|
||
original specification. In particular, only a general description
|
||
was provided for the behavior of "BOOTP relay agents" (originally
|
||
called BOOTP forwarding agents"). The client behavior description
|
||
also suffered in certain ways. This memo attempts to clarify and
|
||
strengthen the specification in these areas. Due to some errors
|
||
introduced into RFC 1532 in the editorial process, this memo is
|
||
reissued as RFC 1542.
|
||
|
||
In addition, new issues have arisen since the original specification
|
||
was written. This memo also attempts to address some of these.
|
||
|
||
Table of Contents
|
||
|
||
1. Introduction................................................. 2
|
||
1.1 Requirements................................................ 3
|
||
1.2 Terminology................................................. 3
|
||
1.3 Data Transmission Order..................................... 4
|
||
2. General Issues............................................... 5
|
||
2.1 General BOOTP Processing.................................... 5
|
||
2.2 Definition of the 'flags' Field............................. 5
|
||
2.3 Bit Ordering of Hardware Addresses.......................... 7
|
||
2.4 BOOTP Over IEEE 802.5 Token Ring Networks................... 8
|
||
3. BOOTP Client Behavior........................................ 9
|
||
3.1 Client use of the 'flags' field............................. 9
|
||
3.1.1 The BROADCAST flag........................................ 9
|
||
3.1.2 The remainder of the 'flags' field........................ 9
|
||
3.2 Definition of the 'secs' field.............................. 10
|
||
3.3 Use of the 'ciaddr' and 'yiaddr' fields..................... 10
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Wimer [Page 1]
|
||
|
||
RFC 1542 Clarifications and Extensions for BOOTP October 1993
|
||
|
||
|
||
3.4 Interpretation of the 'giaddr' field........................ 11
|
||
3.5 Vendor information "magic cookie"........................... 12
|
||
4. BOOTP Relay Agents........................................... 13
|
||
4.1 General BOOTP Processing for Relay Agents................... 14
|
||
4.1.1 BOOTREQUEST Messages...................................... 14
|
||
4.1.2 BOOTREPLY Messages........................................ 17
|
||
5. BOOTP Server Behavior........................................ 18
|
||
5.1 Reception of BOOTREQUEST Messages........................... 18
|
||
5.2 Use of the 'secs' field..................................... 19
|
||
5.3 Use of the 'ciaddr' field................................... 19
|
||
5.4 Strategy for Delivery of BOOTREPLY Messages................. 20
|
||
Acknowledgements................................................ 21
|
||
References...................................................... 22
|
||
Security Considerations......................................... 23
|
||
Author's Address................................................ 23
|
||
|
||
1. Introduction
|
||
|
||
The Bootstrap Protocol (BOOTP) is a UDP/IP-based protocol which
|
||
allows a booting host to configure itself dynamically and without
|
||
user supervision. BOOTP provides a means to notify a host of its
|
||
assigned IP address, the IP address of a boot server host, and the
|
||
name of a file to be loaded into memory and executed [1]. Other
|
||
configuration information such as the local subnet mask, the local
|
||
time offset, the addresses of default routers, and the addresses of
|
||
various Internet servers can also be communicated to a host using
|
||
BOOTP [2].
|
||
|
||
Unfortunately, the original BOOTP specification [1] left some issues
|
||
of the protocol open to question. The exact behavior of BOOTP relay
|
||
agents formerly called "BOOTP forwarding agents") was not clearly
|
||
specified. Some parts of the overall protocol specification actually
|
||
conflict, while other parts have been subject to misinterpretation,
|
||
indicating that clarification is needed. This memo addresses these
|
||
problems.
|
||
|
||
Since the introduction of BOOTP, the IEEE 802.5 Token Ring Network
|
||
has been developed which presents a unique problem for BOOTP's
|
||
particular message-transfer paradigm. This memo also suggests a
|
||
solution for this problem.
|
||
|
||
NOTE: Unless otherwise specified in this document or a later
|
||
document, the information and requirements specified througout this
|
||
document also apply to extensions to BOOTP such as the Dynamic Host
|
||
Configuration Protocol (DHCP) [3].
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Wimer [Page 2]
|
||
|
||
RFC 1542 Clarifications and Extensions for BOOTP October 1993
|
||
|
||
|
||
1.1 Requirements
|
||
|
||
In this memo, the words that are used to define the significance of
|
||
particular requirements are capitalized. These words are:
|
||
|
||
o "MUST"
|
||
|
||
This word or the adjective "REQUIRED" means that the item
|
||
is an absolute requirement of the specification.
|
||
|
||
o "MUST NOT"
|
||
|
||
This phrase means that the item is an absolute prohibition
|
||
of the specification.
|
||
|
||
o "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.
|
||
|
||
o "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.
|
||
|
||
o "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.
|
||
|
||
1.2 Terminology
|
||
|
||
This memo uses the following terms:
|
||
|
||
BOOTREQUEST
|
||
|
||
A BOOTREQUEST message is a BOOTP message sent from a BOOTP
|
||
client to a BOOTP server, requesting configuration information.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Wimer [Page 3]
|
||
|
||
RFC 1542 Clarifications and Extensions for BOOTP October 1993
|
||
|
||
|
||
BOOTREPLY
|
||
|
||
A BOOTREPLY message is a BOOTP message sent from a BOOTP server
|
||
to a BOOTP client, providing configuration information.
|
||
|
||
Silently discard
|
||
|
||
This memo specifies several cases where a BOOTP entity is to
|
||
"silently discard" a received BOOTP message. This means that
|
||
the entity is to discard the message without further
|
||
processing, and that the entity will not send any ICMP error
|
||
message as a result. However, for diagnosis of problems, the
|
||
entity SHOULD provide the capability of logging the error,
|
||
including the contents of the silently-discarded message, and
|
||
SHOULD record the event in a statistics counter.
|
||
|
||
1.3 Data Transmission Order
|
||
|
||
The order of transmission of the header and data described in this
|
||
document is resolved to the octet level. Whenever a diagram shows a
|
||
group of octets, the order of transmission of those octets is the
|
||
normal order in which they are read in English. For example, in the
|
||
following diagram, the octets are transmitted in the order they are
|
||
numbered.
|
||
|
||
0 1
|
||
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
|
||
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|
||
| 1 | 2 |
|
||
+-------------------------------+
|
||
| 3 | 4 |
|
||
+-------------------------------+
|
||
| 5 | 6 |
|
||
+-------------------------------+
|
||
|
||
Whenever an octet represents a numeric quantity, the leftmost bit in
|
||
the diagram is the high order or most significant bit. That is, the
|
||
bit labeled 0 is the most significant bit. For example, the
|
||
following diagram represents the value 170 (decimal).
|
||
|
||
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
|
||
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|
||
|1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0|
|
||
+---------------+
|
||
|
||
Similarly, whenever a multi-octet field represents a numeric quantity
|
||
the leftmost bit of the whole field is the most significant bit.
|
||
When a multi-octet quantity is transmitted the most significant octet
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Wimer [Page 4]
|
||
|
||
RFC 1542 Clarifications and Extensions for BOOTP October 1993
|
||
|
||
|
||
is transmitted first.
|
||
|
||
2. General Issues
|
||
|
||
This section covers issues of general relevance to all BOOTP entities
|
||
(clients, servers, and relay agents).
|
||
|
||
2.1 General BOOTP Processing
|
||
|
||
The following consistency checks SHOULD be performed on BOOTP
|
||
messages:
|
||
|
||
o The IP Total Length and UDP Length must be large enough to
|
||
contain the minimal BOOTP header of 300 octets (in the UDP
|
||
data field) specified in [1].
|
||
|
||
NOTE: Future extensions to the BOOTP protocol may increase the size
|
||
of BOOTP messages. Therefore, BOOTP messages which, according to the
|
||
IP Total Length and UDP Length fields, are larger than the minimum
|
||
size specified by [1] MUST also be accepted.
|
||
|
||
o The 'op' (opcode) field of the message must contain either the
|
||
code for a BOOTREQUEST (1) or the code for a BOOTREPLY (2).
|
||
|
||
BOOTP messages not meeting these consistency checks MUST be silently
|
||
discarded.
|
||
|
||
2.2 Definition of the 'flags' Field
|
||
|
||
The standard BOOTP message format defined in [1] includes a two-octet
|
||
field located between the 'secs' field and the 'ciaddr' field. This
|
||
field is merely designated as "unused" and its contents left
|
||
unspecified, although Section 7.1 of [1] does offer the following
|
||
suggestion:
|
||
|
||
"Before setting up the packet for the first time, it is a good
|
||
idea to clear the entire packet buffer to all zeros; this will
|
||
place all fields in their default state."
|
||
|
||
This memo hereby designates this two-octet field as the 'flags'
|
||
field.
|
||
|
||
This memo hereby defines the most significant bit of the 'flags'
|
||
field as the BROADCAST (B) flag. The semantics of this flag are
|
||
discussed in Sections 3.1.1 and 4.1.2 of this memo.
|
||
|
||
The remaining bits of the 'flags' field are reserved for future
|
||
use. They MUST be set to zero by clients and ignored by servers
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Wimer [Page 5]
|
||
|
||
RFC 1542 Clarifications and Extensions for BOOTP October 1993
|
||
|
||
|
||
and relay agents.
|
||
|
||
The 'flags' field, then, appears as follows:
|
||
|
||
0 1
|
||
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
|
||
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|
||
|B| MBZ |
|
||
+-+-----------------------------+
|
||
|
||
where:
|
||
|
||
B BROADCAST flag (discussed in Sections 3.1.1 and 4.1.2)
|
||
|
||
MBZ MUST BE ZERO (reserved for future use)
|
||
|
||
The format of a BOOTP message is shown below. The numbers in
|
||
parentheses indicate the size of each field in octets.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Wimer [Page 6]
|
||
|
||
RFC 1542 Clarifications and Extensions for BOOTP October 1993
|
||
|
||
|
||
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
|
||
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|
||
| op (1) | htype (1) | hlen (1) | hops (1) |
|
||
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
|
||
| xid (4) |
|
||
+-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
|
||
| secs (2) | flags (2) |
|
||
+-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
|
||
| ciaddr (4) |
|
||
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
|
||
| yiaddr (4) |
|
||
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
|
||
| siaddr (4) |
|
||
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
|
||
| giaddr (4) |
|
||
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
|
||
| |
|
||
| chaddr (16) |
|
||
| |
|
||
| |
|
||
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
|
||
| |
|
||
| sname (64) |
|
||
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
|
||
| |
|
||
| file (128) |
|
||
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
|
||
| |
|
||
| vend (64) |
|
||
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
|
||
|
||
2.3 Bit Ordering of Hardware Addresses
|
||
|
||
The bit ordering used for link-level hardware addresses in the
|
||
'chaddr' field SHOULD be the same as the ordering used for the ARP
|
||
protocol [4] on the client's link-level network (assuming ARP is
|
||
defined for that network).
|
||
|
||
The 'chaddr' field MUST be preserved as it was specified by the BOOTP
|
||
client. A relay agent MUST NOT reverse the bit ordering of the
|
||
'chaddr' field even if it happens to be relaying a BOOTREQUEST
|
||
between two networks which use different bit orderings.
|
||
|
||
DISCUSSION:
|
||
|
||
One of the primary reasons the 'chaddr' field exists is to
|
||
enable BOOTP servers and relay agents to communicate directly
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Wimer [Page 7]
|
||
|
||
RFC 1542 Clarifications and Extensions for BOOTP October 1993
|
||
|
||
|
||
with clients without the use of broadcasts. In practice, the
|
||
contents of the 'chaddr' field is often used to create an ARP-
|
||
cache entry in exactly the same way the normal ARP protocol
|
||
would have. Clearly, interoperability can only be achieved if
|
||
a consistent interpretation of the 'chaddr' field is used.
|
||
|
||
As a practical example, this means that the bit ordering used
|
||
for the 'chaddr' field by a BOOTP client on an IEEE 802.5 Token
|
||
Ring network is the opposite of the bit ordering used by a
|
||
BOOTP client on a DIX ethernet network.
|
||
|
||
2.4 BOOTP Over IEEE 802.5 Token Ring Networks
|
||
|
||
Special consideration of the client/server and client/relay agent
|
||
interactions must be given to IEEE 802.5 networks because of non-
|
||
transparent bridging.
|
||
|
||
The client SHOULD send its broadcast BOOTREQUEST with an All Routes
|
||
Explorer RIF. This will enable servers/relay agents to cache the
|
||
return route if they choose to do so. For those server/relay agents
|
||
which cannot cache the return route (because they are stateless, for
|
||
example), the BOOTREPLY message SHOULD be sent to the client's
|
||
hardware address, as taken from the BOOTP message, with a Spanning
|
||
Tree Rooted RIF. The actual bridge route will be recorded by the
|
||
client and server/relay agent by normal ARP processing code.
|
||
|
||
DISCUSSION:
|
||
|
||
In the simplest case, an unbridged, single ring network, the
|
||
broadcast behavior of the BOOTP protocol is identical to that
|
||
of Ethernet networks. However, a BOOTP client cannot know, a
|
||
priori, that an 802.5 network is not bridged. In fact, the
|
||
likelihood is that the server, or relay agent, will not know
|
||
either.
|
||
|
||
Of the four possible scenerios, only two are interesting: where
|
||
the assumption is that the 802.5 network is not bridged and it
|
||
is, and the assumption that the network is bridged and it is
|
||
not. In the former case, the Routing Information Field (RIF)
|
||
will not be used; therefore, if the server/relay agent are on
|
||
another segment of the ring, the client cannot reach it. In
|
||
the latter case, the RIF field will be used, resulting in a few
|
||
extraneous bytes on the ring. It is obvious that an almost
|
||
immeasurable inefficiency is to be preferred over a complete
|
||
failure to communicate.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Wimer [Page 8]
|
||
|
||
RFC 1542 Clarifications and Extensions for BOOTP October 1993
|
||
|
||
|
||
Given that the assumption is that RIF fields will be needed, it
|
||
is necesary to determine the optimum method for the client to
|
||
reach the server/relay agent, and the optimum method for the
|
||
response to be returned.
|
||
|
||
3. BOOTP Client Behavior
|
||
|
||
This section clarifies various issues regarding BOOTP client
|
||
behavior.
|
||
|
||
3.1 Client use of the 'flags' field
|
||
|
||
3.1.1 The BROADCAST flag
|
||
|
||
Normally, BOOTP servers and relay agents attempt to deliver BOOTREPLY
|
||
messages directly to a client using unicast delivery. The IP
|
||
destination address (in the IP header) is set to the BOOTP 'yiaddr'
|
||
address and the link-layer destination address is set to the BOOTP
|
||
'chaddr' address. Unfortunately, some client implementations are
|
||
unable to receive such unicast IP datagrams until they know their own
|
||
IP address (thus we have a "chicken and egg" issue). Often, however,
|
||
they can receive broadcast IP datagrams (those with a valid IP
|
||
broadcast address as the IP destination and the link-layer broadcast
|
||
address as the link-layer destination).
|
||
|
||
If a client falls into this category, it SHOULD set (to 1) the
|
||
newly-defined BROADCAST flag in the 'flags' field of BOOTREPLY
|
||
messages it generates. This will provide a hint to BOOTP servers and
|
||
relay agents that they should attempt to broadcast their BOOTREPLY
|
||
messages to the client.
|
||
|
||
If a client does not have this limitation (i.e., it is perfectly able
|
||
to receive unicast BOOTREPLY messages), it SHOULD NOT set the
|
||
BROADCAST flag (i.e., it SHOULD clear the BROADCAST flag to 0).
|
||
|
||
DISCUSSION:
|
||
|
||
This addition to the protocol is a workaround for old host
|
||
implementations. Such implementations SHOULD be modified so
|
||
that they may receive unicast BOOTREPLY messages, thus making
|
||
use of this workaround unnecessary. In general, the use of
|
||
this mechanism is discouraged.
|
||
|
||
3.1.2 The remainder of the 'flags' field
|
||
|
||
The remaining bits of the 'flags' field are reserved for future use.
|
||
A client MUST set these bits to zero in all BOOTREQUEST messages it
|
||
generates. A client MUST ignore these bits in all BOOTREPLY messages
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Wimer [Page 9]
|
||
|
||
RFC 1542 Clarifications and Extensions for BOOTP October 1993
|
||
|
||
|
||
it receives.
|
||
|
||
3.2 Definition of the 'secs' field
|
||
|
||
The 'secs' field of a BOOTREQUEST message SHOULD represent the
|
||
elapsed time, in seconds, since the client sent its first BOOTREQUEST
|
||
message. Note that this implies that the 'secs' field of the first
|
||
BOOTREQUEST message SHOULD be set to zero.
|
||
|
||
Clients SHOULD NOT set the 'secs' field to a value which is constant
|
||
for all BOOTREQUEST messages.
|
||
|
||
DISCUSSION:
|
||
|
||
The original definition of the 'secs' field was vague. It was
|
||
not clear whether it represented the time since the first
|
||
BOOTREQUEST message was sent or some other time period such as
|
||
the time since the client machine was powered-up. This has
|
||
limited its usefulness as a policy control mechanism for BOOTP
|
||
servers and relay agents. Furthermore, certain client
|
||
implementations have been known to simply set this field to a
|
||
constant value or use incorrect byte-ordering. Incorrect
|
||
byte-ordering usually makes it appear as if a client has been
|
||
waiting much longer than it really has, so a relay agent will
|
||
relay the BOOTREQUEST sooner than desired (usually
|
||
immediately). These implementation errors have further
|
||
undermined the usefulness of the 'secs' field. These incorrect
|
||
implementations SHOULD be corrected.
|
||
|
||
3.3 Use of the 'ciaddr' and 'yiaddr' fields
|
||
|
||
If a BOOTP client does not know what IP address it should be using,
|
||
the client SHOULD set the 'ciaddr' field to 0.0.0.0. If the client
|
||
has the ability to remember the last IP address it was assigned, or
|
||
it has been preconfigured with an IP address via some alternate
|
||
mechanism, the client MAY fill the 'ciaddr' field with that IP
|
||
address. If the client does place a non-zero IP address in the
|
||
'ciaddr' field, the client MUST be prepared to accept incoming
|
||
unicast datagrams addressed to that IP address and also answer ARP
|
||
requests for that IP address (if ARP is used on that network).
|
||
|
||
The BOOTP server is free to assign a different IP address (in the
|
||
'yiaddr' field) than the client expressed in 'ciaddr'. The client
|
||
SHOULD adopt the IP address specified in 'yiaddr' and begin using it
|
||
as soon as possible.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Wimer [Page 10]
|
||
|
||
RFC 1542 Clarifications and Extensions for BOOTP October 1993
|
||
|
||
|
||
DISCUSSION:
|
||
|
||
There are various interpretations about the purpose of the
|
||
'ciaddr' field and, unfortunately, no agreement on a single
|
||
correct interpretation. One interpretation is that if a client
|
||
is willing to accept whatever IP address the BOOTP server
|
||
assigns to it, the client should always place 0.0.0.0 in the
|
||
'ciaddr' field, regardless of whether it knows its previously-
|
||
assigned address. Conversely, if the client wishes to assert
|
||
that it must have a particular IP address (e.g., the IP address
|
||
was hand-configured by the host administrator and BOOTP is only
|
||
being used to obtain a boot file and/or information from the
|
||
'vend' field), the client will then fill the 'ciaddr' field
|
||
with the desired IP address and ignore the IP address assigned
|
||
by the BOOTP server as indicated in the 'yiaddr' field. An
|
||
alternate interpretation holds that the client always fills the
|
||
'ciaddr' field with its most recently-assigned IP address (if
|
||
known) even if that address may be incorrect. Such a client
|
||
will still accept and use the address assigned by the BOOTP
|
||
server as indicated in the 'yiaddr' field. The motivation for
|
||
this interpretation is to aid the server in identifying the
|
||
client and/or in delivering the BOOTREPLY to the client. Yet a
|
||
third (mis)interpretation allows the client to use 'ciaddr' to
|
||
express the client's desired IP address, even if the client has
|
||
never used that address before or is not currently using that
|
||
address.
|
||
|
||
The last interpretation is incorrect as it may prevent the
|
||
BOOTREPLY from reaching the client. The server will usually
|
||
unicast the reply to the address given in 'ciaddr' but the
|
||
client may not be listening on that address yet, or the client
|
||
may be connected to an incorrect subnet such that normal IP
|
||
routing (correctly) routes the reply to a different subnet.
|
||
|
||
The second interpretation also suffers from the "incorrect
|
||
subnet" problem.
|
||
|
||
The first interpretation seems to be the safest and most likely
|
||
to promote interoperability.
|
||
|
||
3.4 Interpretation of the 'giaddr' field
|
||
|
||
The 'giaddr' field is rather poorly named. It exists to facilitate
|
||
the transfer of BOOTREQUEST messages from a client, through BOOTP
|
||
relay agents, to servers on different networks than the client.
|
||
Similarly, it facilitates the delivery of BOOTREPLY messages from the
|
||
servers, through BOOTP relay agents, back to the client. In no case
|
||
does it represent a general IP router to be used by the client. A
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Wimer [Page 11]
|
||
|
||
RFC 1542 Clarifications and Extensions for BOOTP October 1993
|
||
|
||
|
||
BOOTP client MUST set the 'giaddr' field to zero (0.0.0.0) in all
|
||
BOOTREQUEST messages it generates.
|
||
|
||
A BOOTP client MUST NOT interpret the 'giaddr' field of a BOOTREPLY
|
||
message to be the IP address of an IP router. A BOOTP client SHOULD
|
||
completely ignore the contents of the 'giaddr' field in BOOTREPLY
|
||
messages.
|
||
|
||
DISCUSSION:
|
||
|
||
The semantics of the 'giaddr' field were poorly defined.
|
||
Section 7.5 of [1] states:
|
||
|
||
"If 'giaddr' (gateway address) is nonzero, then the packets
|
||
should be forwarded there first, in order to get to the
|
||
server."
|
||
|
||
In that sentence, "get to" refers to communication from the client to
|
||
the server subsequent to the BOOTP exchange, such as a TFTP session.
|
||
Unfortunately, the 'giaddr' field may contain the address of a BOOTP
|
||
relay agent that is not itself an IP router (according to [1],
|
||
Section 8, fifth paragraph), in which case, it will be useless as a
|
||
first-hop for TFTP packets sent to the server (since, by definition,
|
||
non-routers don't forward datagrams at the IP layer).
|
||
|
||
Although now prohibited by Section 4.1.1 of this memo, the 'giaddr'
|
||
field might contain a broadcast address according to Section 8, sixth
|
||
paragraph of [1]. Not only would such an address be useless as a
|
||
router address, it might also cause the client to ARP for the
|
||
broadcast address (since, if the client didn't receive a subnet mask
|
||
in the BOOTREPLY message, it would be unable to recognize a subnet
|
||
broadcast address). This is clearly undesirable.
|
||
|
||
To reach a non-local server, clients can obtain a first-hop router
|
||
address from the "Gateway" subfield of the "Vendor Information
|
||
Extensions" [2] (if present), or via the ICMP router discovery
|
||
protocol [5] or other similar mechanism.
|
||
|
||
3.5 Vendor information "magic cookie"
|
||
|
||
It is RECOMMENDED that a BOOTP client always fill the first four
|
||
octets of the 'vend' (vendor information) field of a BOOTREQUEST with
|
||
a four-octet identifier called a "magic cookie." A BOOTP client
|
||
SHOULD do this even if it has no special information to communicate
|
||
to the BOOTP server using the 'vend' field. This aids the BOOTP
|
||
server in determining what vendor information format it should use in
|
||
its BOOTREPLY messages.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Wimer [Page 12]
|
||
|
||
RFC 1542 Clarifications and Extensions for BOOTP October 1993
|
||
|
||
|
||
If a special vendor-specific magic cookie is not being used, a BOOTP
|
||
client SHOULD use the dotted decimal value 99.130.83.99 as specified
|
||
in [2]. In this case, if the client has no information to
|
||
communicate to the server, the octet immediately following the magic
|
||
cookie SHOULD be set to the "End" tag (255) and the remaining octets
|
||
of the 'vend' field SHOULD be set to zero.
|
||
|
||
DISCUSSION:
|
||
|
||
Sometimes different operating systems or networking packages
|
||
are run on the same machine at different times (or even at the
|
||
same time!). Since the hardware address placed in the 'chaddr'
|
||
field will likely be the same, BOOTREQUESTs from completely
|
||
different BOOTP clients on the same machine will likely be
|
||
difficult for a BOOTP server to differentiate. If the client
|
||
includes a magic cookie in its BOOTREQUESTs, the server will at
|
||
least know what format the client expects and can understand in
|
||
corresponding BOOTREPLY messages.
|
||
|
||
4. BOOTP Relay Agents
|
||
|
||
In many cases, BOOTP clients and their associated BOOTP
|
||
server(s) do not reside on the same IP network or subnet. In
|
||
such cases, some kind of third-party agent is required to
|
||
transfer BOOTP messages between clients and servers. Such an
|
||
agent was originally referred to as a "BOOTP forwarding agent."
|
||
However, in order to avoid confusion with the IP forwarding
|
||
function of an IP router, the name "BOOTP relay agent" is
|
||
hereby adopted instead.
|
||
|
||
DISCUSSION:
|
||
|
||
A BOOTP relay agent performs a task which is distinct from an
|
||
IP router's normal IP forwarding function. While a router
|
||
normally switches IP datagrams between networks more-or-less
|
||
transparently, a BOOTP relay agent may more properly be thought
|
||
to receive BOOTP messages as a final destination and then
|
||
generate new BOOTP messages as a result. It is incorrect for a
|
||
relay agent implementation to simply forward a BOOTP message
|
||
"straight through like a regular packet."
|
||
|
||
This relay-agent functionality is most conveniently located in
|
||
the routers which interconnect the clients and servers, but may
|
||
alternatively be located in a host which is directly connected
|
||
to the client subnet.
|
||
|
||
Any Internet host or router which provides BOOTP relay-agent
|
||
capability MUST conform to the specifications in this memo.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Wimer [Page 13]
|
||
|
||
RFC 1542 Clarifications and Extensions for BOOTP October 1993
|
||
|
||
|
||
4.1 General BOOTP Processing for Relay Agents
|
||
|
||
All locally delivered UDP messages whose UDP destination port number
|
||
is BOOTPS (67) are considered for special processing by the host or
|
||
router's logical BOOTP relay agent.
|
||
|
||
In the case of a host, locally delivered datagrams are simply all
|
||
datagrams normally received by that host, i.e., broadcast and
|
||
multicast datagrams as well as unicast datagrams addressed to IP
|
||
addresses of that host.
|
||
|
||
In the case of a router, locally delivered datagrams are broadcast
|
||
and multicast datagrams as well as unicast datagrams addressed to IP
|
||
addresses of that router. These are datagrams for which the router
|
||
should be considered an end destination as opposed to an intermediate
|
||
switching node. Thus a unicast datagram with an IP destination not
|
||
matching any of the router's IP addresses is not considered for
|
||
processing by the router's logical BOOTP relay agent.
|
||
|
||
Hosts and routers are usually required to silently discard incoming
|
||
datagrams containing illegal IP source addresses. This is generally
|
||
known as "Martian address filtering." One of these illegal addresses
|
||
is 0.0.0.0 (or actually anything on network 0). However, hosts or
|
||
routers which support a BOOTP relay agent MUST accept for local
|
||
delivery to the relay agent BOOTREQUEST messages whose IP source
|
||
address is 0.0.0.0. BOOTREQUEST messages from legal IP source
|
||
addresses MUST also be accepted.
|
||
|
||
A relay agent MUST silently discard any received UDP messages whose
|
||
UDP destination port number is BOOTPC (68).
|
||
|
||
DISCUSSION:
|
||
|
||
There should be no need for a relay agent to process messages
|
||
addressed to the BOOTPC port. Careful reading of the original
|
||
BOOTP specification [1] will show this. Nevertheless, some
|
||
relay agent implementations incorrectly relay such messages.
|
||
|
||
The consistency checks specified in Section 2.1 SHOULD be performed
|
||
by the relay agent. BOOTP messages not meeting these consistency
|
||
checks MUST be silently discarded.
|
||
|
||
4.1.1 BOOTREQUEST Messages
|
||
|
||
Some configuration mechanism MUST exist to enable or disable the
|
||
relaying of BOOTREQUEST messages. Relaying MUST be disabled by
|
||
default.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Wimer [Page 14]
|
||
|
||
RFC 1542 Clarifications and Extensions for BOOTP October 1993
|
||
|
||
|
||
When the BOOTP relay agent receives a BOOTREQUEST message, it MAY use
|
||
the value of the 'secs' (seconds since client began booting) field of
|
||
the request as a factor in deciding whether to relay the request. If
|
||
such a policy mechanism is implemented, its threshold SHOULD be
|
||
configurable.
|
||
|
||
DISCUSSION:
|
||
|
||
To date, this feature of the BOOTP protocol has not necessarily
|
||
been shown to be useful. See Section 3.2 for a discussion.
|
||
|
||
The relay agent MUST silently discard BOOTREQUEST messages whose
|
||
'hops' field exceeds the value 16. A configuration option SHOULD be
|
||
provided to set this threshold to a smaller value if desired by the
|
||
network manager. The default setting for a configurable threshold
|
||
SHOULD be 4.
|
||
|
||
If the relay agent does decide to relay the request, it MUST examine
|
||
the 'giaddr' ("gateway" IP address) field. If this field is zero,
|
||
the relay agent MUST fill this field with the IP address of the
|
||
interface on which the request was received. If the interface has
|
||
more than one IP address logically associated with it, the relay
|
||
agent SHOULD choose one IP address associated with that interface and
|
||
use it consistently for all BOOTP messages it relays. If the
|
||
'giaddr' field contains some non-zero value, the 'giaddr' field MUST
|
||
NOT be modified. The relay agent MUST NOT, under any circumstances,
|
||
fill the 'giaddr' field with a broadcast address as is suggested in
|
||
[1] (Section 8, sixth paragraph).
|
||
|
||
The value of the 'hops' field MUST be incremented.
|
||
|
||
All other BOOTP fields MUST be preserved intact.
|
||
|
||
At this point, the request is relayed to its new destination (or
|
||
destinations). This destination MUST be configurable. Further, this
|
||
destination configuration SHOULD be independent of the destination
|
||
configuration for any other so-called "broadcast forwarders" (e.g.,
|
||
for the UDP-based TFTP, DNS, Time, etc. protocols).
|
||
|
||
DISCUSSION:
|
||
|
||
The network manager may wish the relaying destination to be an
|
||
IP unicast, multicast, broadcast, or some combination. A
|
||
configurable list of destination IP addresses provides good
|
||
flexibility. More flexible configuration schemes are
|
||
encouraged. For example, it may be desirable to send to the
|
||
limited broadcast address (255.255.255.255) on specific
|
||
physical interfaces. However, if the BOOTREQUEST message was
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Wimer [Page 15]
|
||
|
||
RFC 1542 Clarifications and Extensions for BOOTP October 1993
|
||
|
||
|
||
received as a broadcast, the relay agent MUST NOT rebroadcast
|
||
the BOOTREQUEST on the physical interface from whence it came.
|
||
|
||
A relay agent MUST use the same destination (or set of
|
||
destinations) for all BOOTREQUEST messages it relays from a
|
||
given client.
|
||
|
||
DISCUSSION:
|
||
|
||
At least one known relay agent implementation uses a round-
|
||
robin scheme to provide load balancing across multiple BOOTP
|
||
servers. Each time it receives a new BOOTREQUEST message, it
|
||
relays the message to the next BOOTP server in a list of
|
||
servers. Thus, with this relay agent, multiple consecutive
|
||
BOOTREQUEST messages from a given client will be delivered to
|
||
different servers.
|
||
|
||
Unfortunately, this well-intentioned scheme reacts badly with
|
||
DHCP [3] and perhaps other variations of the BOOTP protocol
|
||
which depend on multiple exchanges of BOOTREQUEST and BOOTREPLY
|
||
messages between clients and servers. Therefore, all
|
||
BOOTREQUEST messages from a given client MUST be relayed to the
|
||
same destination (or set of destinations).
|
||
|
||
One way to meet this requirement while providing some load-
|
||
balancing benefit is to hash the client's link-layer address
|
||
(or some other reliable client-identifying information) and use
|
||
the resulting hash value to select the appropriate relay
|
||
destination (or set of destinations). The simplest solution,
|
||
of course, is to not use a load-balancing scheme and just relay
|
||
ALL received BOOTREQUEST messages to the same destination (or
|
||
set of destinations).
|
||
|
||
When transmitting the request to its next destination, the
|
||
relay agent may set the IP Time-To-Live field to either the
|
||
default value for new datagrams originated by the relay agent,
|
||
or to the TTL of the original BOOTREQUEST decremented by (at
|
||
least) one.
|
||
|
||
DISCUSSION:
|
||
|
||
As an extra precaution against BOOTREQUEST loops, it is
|
||
preferable to use the decremented TTL from the original
|
||
BOOTREQUEST. Unfortunately, this may be difficult to do in
|
||
some implementations.
|
||
|
||
If the BOOTREQUEST has a UDP checksum (i.e., the UDP checksum
|
||
is non-zero), the checksum must be recalculated before
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Wimer [Page 16]
|
||
|
||
RFC 1542 Clarifications and Extensions for BOOTP October 1993
|
||
|
||
|
||
transmitting the request.
|
||
|
||
4.1.2 BOOTREPLY Messages
|
||
|
||
BOOTP relay agents relay BOOTREPLY messages only to BOOTP clients.
|
||
It is the responsibility of BOOTP servers to send BOOTREPLY messages
|
||
directly to the relay agent identified in the 'giaddr' field.
|
||
Therefore, a relay agent may assume that all BOOTREPLY messages it
|
||
receives are intended for BOOTP clients on its directly-connected
|
||
networks.
|
||
|
||
When a relay agent receives a BOOTREPLY message, it should examine
|
||
the BOOTP 'giaddr', 'yiaddr', 'chaddr', 'htype', and 'hlen' fields.
|
||
These fields should provide adequate information for the relay agent
|
||
to deliver the BOOTREPLY message to the client.
|
||
|
||
The 'giaddr' field can be used to identify the logical interface from
|
||
which the reply must be sent (i.e., the host or router interface
|
||
connected to the same network as the BOOTP client). If the content
|
||
of the 'giaddr' field does not match one of the relay agent's
|
||
directly-connected logical interfaces, the BOOTREPLY messsage MUST be
|
||
silently discarded.
|
||
|
||
The 'htype', 'hlen', and 'chaddr' fields supply the link-layer
|
||
hardware type, hardware address length, and hardware address of the
|
||
client as defined in the ARP protocol [4] and the Assigned Numbers
|
||
document [6]. The 'yiaddr' field is the IP address of the client, as
|
||
assigned by the BOOTP server.
|
||
|
||
The relay agent SHOULD examine the newly-defined BROADCAST flag (see
|
||
Sections 2.2 and 3.1.1 for more information). If this flag is set to
|
||
1, the reply SHOULD be sent as an IP broadcast using the IP limited
|
||
broadcast address 255.255.255.255 as the IP destination address and
|
||
the link-layer broadcast address as the link-layer destination
|
||
address. If the BROADCAST flag is cleared (0), the reply SHOULD be
|
||
sent as an IP unicast to the IP address specified by the 'yiaddr'
|
||
field and the link-layer address specified in the 'chaddr' field. If
|
||
unicasting is not possible, the reply MAY be sent as a broadcast, in
|
||
which case it SHOULD be sent to the link-layer broadcast address
|
||
using the IP limited broadcast address 255.255.255.255 as the IP
|
||
destination address.
|
||
|
||
DISCUSSION:
|
||
|
||
The addition of the BROADCAST flag to the protocol is a
|
||
workaround to help promote interoperability with certain client
|
||
implementations.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Wimer [Page 17]
|
||
|
||
RFC 1542 Clarifications and Extensions for BOOTP October 1993
|
||
|
||
|
||
Note that since the 'flags' field was previously defined in [1]
|
||
simply as an "unused" field, it is possible that old client or
|
||
server implementations may accidentally and unknowingly set the
|
||
new BROADCAST flag. It is actually expected that such
|
||
implementations will be rare (most implementations seem to
|
||
zero-out this field), but interactions with such
|
||
implementations must nevertheless be considered. If an old
|
||
client or server does set the BROADCAST flag to 1 incorrectly,
|
||
conforming relay agents will generate broadcast BOOTREPLY
|
||
messages to the corresponding client. The BOOTREPLY messages
|
||
should still properly reach the client, at the cost of one
|
||
(otherwise unnecessary) additional broadcast. This, however,
|
||
is no worse than a server or relay agent which always
|
||
broadcasts its BOOTREPLY messages.
|
||
|
||
Older client or server implementations which accidentally set
|
||
the BROADCAST flag SHOULD be corrected to properly comply with
|
||
this newer specification.
|
||
|
||
All BOOTP fields MUST be preserved intact. The relay agent
|
||
MUST NOT modify any BOOTP field of the BOOTREPLY message when
|
||
relaying it to the client.
|
||
|
||
The reply MUST have its UDP destination port set to BOOTPC
|
||
(68).
|
||
|
||
If the BOOTREPLY has a UDP checksum (i.e., the UDP checksum is
|
||
non-zero), the checksum must be recalculated before
|
||
transmitting the reply.
|
||
|
||
5. BOOTP Server Behavior
|
||
|
||
This section provides clarifications on the behavior of BOOTP
|
||
servers.
|
||
|
||
5.1 Reception of BOOTREQUEST Messages
|
||
|
||
All received UDP messages whose UDP destination port number is BOOTPS
|
||
(67) are considered for processing by the BOOTP server.
|
||
|
||
Hosts and routers are usually required to silently discard incoming
|
||
datagrams containing illegal IP source addresses. This is generally
|
||
known as "Martian address filtering." One of these illegal addresses
|
||
is 0.0.0.0 (or actually anything on network 0). However, hosts or
|
||
routers which support a BOOTP server MUST accept for local delivery
|
||
to the server BOOTREQUEST messages whose IP source address is
|
||
0.0.0.0. BOOTREQUEST messages from legal IP source addresses MUST
|
||
also be accepted.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Wimer [Page 18]
|
||
|
||
RFC 1542 Clarifications and Extensions for BOOTP October 1993
|
||
|
||
|
||
A BOOTP server MUST silently discard any received UDP messages whose
|
||
UDP destination port number is BOOTPC (68).
|
||
|
||
DISCUSSION:
|
||
|
||
There should be no need for a BOOTP server to process messages
|
||
addressed to the BOOTPC port. Careful reading of the original
|
||
BOOTP specification [1] will show this.
|
||
|
||
The consistency checks specified in Section 2.1 SHOULD be
|
||
performed by the BOOTP server. BOOTP messages not meeting
|
||
these consistency checks MUST be silently discarded.
|
||
|
||
5.2 Use of the 'secs' field
|
||
|
||
When the BOOTP server receives a BOOTREQUEST message, it MAY use the
|
||
value of the 'secs' (seconds since client began booting) field of the
|
||
request as a factor in deciding whether and/or how to reply to the
|
||
request.
|
||
|
||
DISCUSSION:
|
||
|
||
To date, this feature of the BOOTP protocol has not necessarily
|
||
been shown to be useful. See Section 3.2 for a discussion.
|
||
|
||
5.3 Use of the 'ciaddr' field
|
||
|
||
There have been various client interpretations of the 'ciaddr' field
|
||
for which Section 3.3 should be consulted. A BOOTP server SHOULD be
|
||
prepared to deal with these varying interpretations. In general, the
|
||
'ciaddr' field SHOULD NOT be trusted as a sole key in identifying a
|
||
client; the contents of the 'ciaddr', 'chaddr', 'htype', and 'hlen'
|
||
fields, and probably other information (perhaps in the 'file' and
|
||
'vend' fields) SHOULD all be considered together in deciding how to
|
||
respond to a given client.
|
||
|
||
BOOTP servers SHOULD preserve the contents of the 'ciaddr' field in
|
||
BOOTREPLY messages; the contents of 'ciaddr' in a BOOTREPLY message
|
||
SHOULD exactly match the contents of 'ciaddr' in the corresponding
|
||
BOOTREQUEST message.
|
||
|
||
DISCUSSION:
|
||
|
||
It has been suggested that a client may wish to use the
|
||
contents of 'ciaddr' to further verify that a particular
|
||
BOOTREPLY message was indeed intended for it.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Wimer [Page 19]
|
||
|
||
RFC 1542 Clarifications and Extensions for BOOTP October 1993
|
||
|
||
|
||
5.4 Strategy for Delivery of BOOTREPLY Messages
|
||
|
||
Once the BOOTP server has created an appropriate BOOTREPLY message,
|
||
that BOOTREPLY message must be properly delivered to the client.
|
||
|
||
The server SHOULD first check the 'ciaddr' field. If the 'ciaddr'
|
||
field is non-zero, the BOOTREPLY message SHOULD be sent as an IP
|
||
unicast to the IP address identified in the 'ciaddr' field. The UDP
|
||
destination port MUST be set to BOOTPC (68). However, the server
|
||
MUST be aware of the problems identified in Section 3.3. The server
|
||
MAY choose to ignore the 'ciaddr' field and act as if the 'ciaddr'
|
||
field contains 0.0.0.0 (and thus continue with the rest of the
|
||
delivery algorithm below).
|
||
|
||
The server SHOULD next check the 'giaddr' field. If this field is
|
||
non-zero, the server SHOULD send the BOOTREPLY as an IP unicast to
|
||
the IP address identified in the 'giaddr' field. The UDP destination
|
||
port MUST be set to BOOTPS (67). This action will deliver the
|
||
BOOTREPLY message directly to the BOOTP relay agent closest to the
|
||
client; the relay agent will then perform the final delivery to the
|
||
client. If the BOOTP server has prior knowledge that a particular
|
||
client cannot receive unicast BOOTREPLY messages (e.g., the network
|
||
manager has explicitly configured the server with such knowledge),
|
||
the server MAY set the newly-defined BROADCAST flag to indicate that
|
||
relay agents SHOULD broadcast the BOOTREPLY message to the client.
|
||
Otherwise, the server MUST preserve the state of the BROADCAST flag
|
||
so that the relay agent can correctly act upon it.
|
||
|
||
If the 'giaddr' field is set to 0.0.0.0, then the client resides on
|
||
one of the same networks as the BOOTP server. The server SHOULD
|
||
examine the newly-defined BROADCAST flag (see Sections 2.2, 3.1.1 and
|
||
4.1.2 for more information). If this flag is set to 1 or the server
|
||
has prior knowledge that the client is unable to receive unicast
|
||
BOOTREPLY messages, the reply SHOULD be sent as an IP broadcast using
|
||
the IP limited broadcast address 255.255.255.255 as the IP
|
||
destination address and the link-layer broadcast address as the
|
||
link-layer destination address. If the BROADCAST flag is cleared
|
||
(0), the reply SHOULD be sent as an IP unicast to the IP address
|
||
specified by the 'yiaddr' field and the link-layer address specified
|
||
in the 'chaddr' field. If unicasting is not possible, the reply MAY
|
||
be sent as a broadcast in which case it SHOULD be sent to the link-
|
||
layer broadcast address using the IP limited broadcast address
|
||
255.255.255.255 as the IP destination address. In any case, the UDP
|
||
destination port MUST be set to BOOTPC (68).
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Wimer [Page 20]
|
||
|
||
RFC 1542 Clarifications and Extensions for BOOTP October 1993
|
||
|
||
|
||
DISCUSSION:
|
||
|
||
The addition of the BROADCAST flag to the protocol is a
|
||
workaround to help promote interoperability with certain client
|
||
implementations.
|
||
|
||
The following table summarizes server delivery decisions for
|
||
BOOTREPLY messages based upon information in BOOTREQUEST
|
||
messages:
|
||
|
||
BOOTREQUEST fields BOOTREPLY values for UDP, IP, link-layer
|
||
+-----------------------+-----------------------------------------+
|
||
| 'ciaddr' 'giaddr' B | UDP dest IP destination link dest |
|
||
+-----------------------+-----------------------------------------+
|
||
| non-zero X X | BOOTPC (68) 'ciaddr' normal |
|
||
| 0.0.0.0 non-zero X | BOOTPS (67) 'giaddr' normal |
|
||
| 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 0 | BOOTPC (68) 'yiaddr' 'chaddr' |
|
||
| 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 1 | BOOTPC (68) 255.255.255.255 broadcast |
|
||
+-----------------------+-----------------------------------------+
|
||
|
||
B = BROADCAST flag
|
||
|
||
X = Don't care
|
||
|
||
normal = determine from the given IP destination using normal
|
||
IP routing mechanisms and/or ARP as for any other
|
||
normal datagram
|
||
|
||
Acknowledgements
|
||
|
||
The author would like to thank Gary Malkin for his contribution of
|
||
the "BOOTP over IEEE 802.5 Token Ring Networks" section, and Steve
|
||
Deering for his observations on the problems associated with the
|
||
'giaddr' field.
|
||
|
||
Ralph Droms and the many members of the IETF Dynamic Host
|
||
Configuration and Router Requirements working groups provided ideas
|
||
for this memo as well as encouragement to write it.
|
||
|
||
Philip Almquist and David Piscitello offered many helpful suggestions
|
||
for improving the clarity, accuracy, and organization of this memo.
|
||
These contributions are graciously acknowledged.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Wimer [Page 21]
|
||
|
||
RFC 1542 Clarifications and Extensions for BOOTP October 1993
|
||
|
||
|
||
References
|
||
|
||
[1] Croft, B., and J. Gilmore, "Bootstrap Protocol (BOOTP)", RFC 951,
|
||
Stanford University and Sun Microsystems, September 1985.
|
||
|
||
[2] Reynolds, J., "BOOTP Vendor Information Extensions", RFC 1497,
|
||
USC/Information Sciences Institute, August 1993. This RFC is
|
||
occasionally reissued with a new number. Please be sure to
|
||
consult the latest version.
|
||
|
||
[3] Droms, R., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol", RFC 1541,
|
||
Bucknell University, October 1993.
|
||
|
||
[4] Plummer, D., "An Ethernet Address Resolution Protocol", STD 37,
|
||
RFC 826, MIT, November 1982.
|
||
|
||
[5] Deering, S., "ICMP Router Discovery Messages", RFC 1256, Xerox
|
||
PARC, September 1991.
|
||
|
||
[6] Reynolds, J., and J. Postel, "Assigned Numbers", STD 2, RFC 1340,
|
||
USC/Information Sciences Institute, July, 1992. This RFC is
|
||
periodically reissued with a new number. Please be sure to
|
||
consult the latest version.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Wimer [Page 22]
|
||
|
||
RFC 1542 Clarifications and Extensions for BOOTP October 1993
|
||
|
||
|
||
Security Considerations
|
||
|
||
There are many factors which make BOOTP in its current form quite
|
||
insecure. BOOTP is built directly upon UDP and IP which are as yet
|
||
inherently insecure themselves. Furthermore, BOOTP is generally
|
||
intended to make maintenance of remote and/or diskless hosts easier.
|
||
While perhaps not impossible, configuring such hosts with passwords or
|
||
keys may be difficult and inconvenient. This makes it difficult to
|
||
provide any form of reasonable authentication between servers and
|
||
clients.
|
||
|
||
Unauthorized BOOTP servers may easily be set up. Such servers can
|
||
then send false and potentially disruptive information to clients such
|
||
as incorrect or duplicate IP addresses, incorrect routing information
|
||
(including spoof routers, etc.), incorrect domain nameserver addresses
|
||
(such as spoof nameservers), and so on. Clearly, once this "seed"
|
||
mis-information is planted, an attacker can further compromise the
|
||
affected systems.
|
||
|
||
Unauthorized BOOTP relay agents may present some of the same problems
|
||
as unauthorized BOOTP servers.
|
||
|
||
Malicious BOOTP clients could masquerade as legitimate clients and
|
||
retrieve information intended for those legitimate clients. Where
|
||
dynamic allocation of resources is used, a malicious client could
|
||
claim all resources for itself, thereby denying resources to
|
||
legitimate clients.
|
||
|
||
Author's Address
|
||
|
||
Walt Wimer
|
||
Network Development
|
||
Carnegie Mellon University
|
||
5000 Forbes Avenue
|
||
Pittsburgh, PA 15213-3890
|
||
|
||
Phone: (412) 268-6252
|
||
EMail: Walter.Wimer@CMU.EDU
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Wimer [Page 23]
|
||
|