1 files changed, 339 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc4390.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc4390.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..529e0de
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/rfc/rfc4390.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,339 @@
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Network Working Group                                      Vivek Kashyap
+Request for Comments: 4390                                           IBM
+Category: Standards Track                                     April 2006
+
+
+       Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) over InfiniBand
+
+Status of This Memo
+
+   This document 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" (STD 1) for the standardization state
+   and status of this protocol.  Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
+
+Copyright Notice
+
+   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
+
+Abstract
+
+   IP over Infiniband (IPoIB) link-layer address is 20 octets long.
+   This is larger than the 16 octets reserved for the hardware address
+   in a Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol/Bootstrap Protocol
+   (DHCP/BOOTP) message.  The above inequality imposes restrictions on
+   the use of the DHCP message fields when used over an IPoIB network.
+   This document describes the use of DHCP message fields when
+   implementing DHCP over IPoIB.
+
+Table of Contents
+
+   1. Introduction ....................................................2
+   2. The DHCP over IPoIB Mechanism ...................................2
+      2.1. IPoIB-specific Usage of DHCP Message Fields ................3
+      2.2. Use of the BROADCAST flag ..................................3
+   3. Security Considerations .........................................3
+   4. Acknowledgement .................................................4
+   5. References ......................................................4
+      5.1. Normative References .......................................4
+      5.2. Informative References .....................................4
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Kashyap                     Standards Track                     [Page 1]
+
+RFC 4390                  DHCP Over Infiniband                April 2006
+
+
+1.  Introduction
+
+   The Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) provides a framework
+   for passing configuration information to hosts on an IP network
+   [RFC2131].  DHCP is based on the Bootstrap Protocol (BOOTP) [RFC951]
+   adding the capability of automatic allocation of reusable network
+   addresses and additional configuration options [RFC2131,RFC2132].
+
+   The DHCP server receives a broadcast request from a client.  The DHCP
+   server uses the client interface's hardware address to unicast a
+   reply when the client does not yet have an IP address assigned to it.
+   The "chaddr" field in the DHCP message carries the client's hardware
+   address.
+
+   The "chaddr" field is 16 octets in length.  The IPoIB link-layer
+   address is 20 octets in length [RFC4391].  Therefore, the IPoIB
+   link-layer address will not fit in the "chaddr" field making it
+   impossible for the DHCP server to unicast a reply to the client.
+
+   To ensure interoperability, the usage of the fields and the method
+   for DHCP interaction must be clarified.  This document describes the
+   IPoIB-specific usage of some fields of DHCP.  See [RFC2131] for the
+   mechanism of DHCP and the explanations of each field.
+
+   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].
+
+2.  The DHCP over IPoIB Mechanism
+
+   As described above, the link-layer address is unavailable to the DHCP
+   server because the link-layer address is larger than the "chaddr"
+   field length.  As a result, the server cannot unicast its reply to
+   the client.  Therefore, a DHCP client MUST request that the server
+   send a broadcast reply by setting the BROADCAST flag when IPoIB
+   Address Resolution Protocol (ARP) is not possible, i.e., in
+   situations where the client does not know its IP address.
+
+   [RFC1542] discourages the use of a broadcast reply.  But in the case
+   of IPoIB, this is a necessity because the server does not receive the
+   link-layer address.  To desynchronise broadcasts at subnet startup,
+   [RFC2131] suggests that a client wait a random time (1 to 10 seconds)
+   before initiating server discovery.  The same timeout will spread out
+   the DHCP server broadcast responses generated due to the use of the
+   BROADCAST bit.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Kashyap                     Standards Track                     [Page 2]
+
+RFC 4390                  DHCP Over Infiniband                April 2006
+
+
+   The client hardware address, "chaddr", is unique in the subnet and
+   hence can be used to identify a client interface.  But in the absence
+   of a unique "chaddr", another unique client identifier must be used.
+
+   The DHCP protocol states that the "client identifier" option may be
+   used as the unique identifying value for the client [RFC2132].  This
+   value must be unique within the client's subnet.
+
+   The "client identifier" option includes a type and identifier pair.
+   The identifier included in the "client identifier" option may consist
+   of a hardware address or any other unique value such as the DNS name
+   of the client.  When a hardware address is used, the type field
+   should be one of the ARP hardware types listed in [ARPPARAM].
+
+2.1.  IPoIB-specific Usage of DHCP Message Fields
+
+   A DHCP client, when working over an IPoIB interface, MUST follow the
+   following rules:
+
+    "htype" (hardware address type) MUST be 32 [ARPPARAM].
+
+    "hlen" (hardware address length) MUST be 0.
+
+    "chaddr" (client hardware address) field MUST be zeroed.
+
+    "client-identifier" option MUST be used in DHCP messages.
+
+   The "client identifier" used in DHCP messages MUST conform to
+   [RFC4361].
+
+2.2.  Use of the BROADCAST flag
+
+   A DHCP client on IPoIB MUST set the BROADCAST flag in DHCPDISCOVER
+   and DHCPREQUEST messages (and set "ciaddr" to zero) to ensure that
+   the server (or the relay agent) broadcasts its reply to the client.
+
+   Note: As described in [RFC2131], "ciaddr" MUST be filled in with the
+         client's IP address during BOUND, RENEWING or REBINDING states;
+         therefore, the BROADCAST flag MUST NOT be set.  In these cases,
+         the DHCP server unicasts DHCPACK message to the address in
+         "ciaddr".  The link address will be resolved by ARP.
+
+3.  Security Considerations
+
+   [RFC2131] describes the security considerations relevant to DHCP.
+   This document does not introduce any new issues.
+
+
+
+
+
+Kashyap                     Standards Track                     [Page 3]
+
+RFC 4390                  DHCP Over Infiniband                April 2006
+
+
+4.  Acknowledgement
+
+   This document borrows extensively from [RFC2855].  Roy Larsen pointed
+   out the length discrepancy between the IPoIB link address and DHCP's
+   "chaddr" field.
+
+5.  References
+
+5.1.  Normative References
+
+   [RFC2119]       Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
+                   Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
+
+   [RFC2131]       Droms, R., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol", RFC
+                   2131, March 1997.
+
+   [RFC2132]       Alexander, S. and R. Droms, "DHCP Options and BOOTP
+                   Vendor Extensions", RFC 2132, March 1997.
+
+   [RFC951]        Housley, R., Horting, T., and P. Yee, "TELNET
+                   Authentication Using KEA and SKIPJACK", RFC 2951,
+                   September 2000.
+
+   [RFC4391]       Chu, J. and V. Kashyap "Transmission of IP over
+                   InfiniBand (IPoIB)", RFC 4391, April 2006.
+
+   [ARPPARAM]      http://www.iana.org/numbers.html
+
+   [RFC4361]       Lemon, T. and B. Sommerfeld, "Node-specific Client
+                   Identifiers for Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
+                   Version Four (DHCPv4)", RFC 4361, February 2006.
+
+5.2.  Informative References
+
+   [RFC2855]       Fujisawa, K., "DHCP for IEEE 1394", RFC 2855, June
+                   2000.
+
+   [RFC1542]       Wimer, W., "Clarifications and Extensions for the
+                   Bootstrap Protocol", RFC 1542, October 1993.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Kashyap                     Standards Track                     [Page 4]
+
+RFC 4390                  DHCP Over Infiniband                April 2006
+
+
+Author's Address
+
+   Vivek Kashyap
+   15350, SW Koll Parkway
+   Beaverton, OR 97006
+   USA
+
+   Phone: +1 503 578 3422
+   EMail: vivk@us.ibm.com
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Kashyap                     Standards Track                     [Page 5]
+
+RFC 4390                  DHCP Over Infiniband                April 2006
+
+
+Full Copyright Statement
+
+   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
+
+   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
+   contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
+   retain all their rights.
+
+   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
+   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
+   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
+   ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM 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.
+
+Intellectual Property
+
+   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
+   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
+   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
+   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
+   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
+   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
+   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
+   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
+
+   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
+   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
+   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
+   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
+   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
+   http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
+
+   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
+   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
+   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
+   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at
+   ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
+
+Acknowledgement
+
+   Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
+   Administrative Support Activity (IASA).
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Kashyap                     Standards Track                     [Page 6]
+