<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc [
  <!ENTITY nbsp    "&#160;">
  <!ENTITY zwsp   "&#8203;">
  <!ENTITY nbhy   "&#8209;">
  <!ENTITY wj     "&#8288;">
]>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="rfc2629.xslt" ?>
<!-- generated by https://github.com/cabo/kramdown-rfc version 1.7.5 (Ruby 2.6.10) -->
<rfc xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude" ipr="trust200902" docName="draft-porfiri-dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6-ra-00" category="std" consensus="true" submissionType="IETF" tocInclude="true" sortRefs="true" symRefs="true" version="3">
  <!-- xml2rfc v2v3 conversion 3.19.2 -->
  <front>
    <title abbrev="DCHP 4o6 Relay Agent">DHCPv4 over DHCPv6 with Relay Agent Support</title>
    <seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-porfiri-dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6-ra-00"/>
    <author initials="C." surname="Porfiri" fullname="Claudio Porfiri">
      <organization>Ericsson</organization>
      <address>
        <email>claudio.porfiri@ericsson.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <author initials="S." surname="Krishnan" fullname="Suresh Krishnan">
      <organization>Cisco</organization>
      <address>
        <email>suresh.krishnan@gmail.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <author initials="J." surname="Arkko" fullname="Jari Arkko">
      <organization>Ericsson</organization>
      <address>
        <email>jari.arkko@ericsson.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <author initials="M." surname="Kühlewind" fullname="Mirja Kühlewind">
      <organization>Ericsson</organization>
      <address>
        <email>mirja.kuhlewind@ericsson.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <date year="2024" month="February" day="01"/>
    <area>Internet</area>
    <workgroup>Dynamic Host Configuration</workgroup>
    <keyword>dhcp</keyword>
    <abstract>
      <?line 56?>

<t>This document describes a general mechanism for networks
with legacy IPv4 only clients to use DHCPv4-over-DHCPv6
(DHCP 4o6) for discovering information about network Topology.
To address this scenario, this document specifies an amendment
to RFC7341 that allows a new 4o6 Relay Agent (4o6RA) to perform
the 4o6 DHCP en- and decapsultion instead of the client.</t>
    </abstract>
    <note removeInRFC="true">
      <name>About This Document</name>
      <t>
        Status information for this document may be found at <eref target="https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-porfiri-dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6-ra/"/>.
      </t>
      <t>Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at
        <eref target="https://github.com/mirjak/dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6-ra"/>.</t>
    </note>
  </front>
  <middle>
    <?line 65?>

<section anchor="introduction">
      <name>Introduction</name>
      <t>In some networks the configuration of a client host may depend on the Topology.
However, when a new client host gets connected to the network, it may be unaware of
the Topology and respectively how it has to be configured.</t>
      <t>In IPv6 networks, Topology discover can be realized using DHCPv6 Relay Agents <xref target="RFC6221"/>
that insert relay agent options in DHCPv6 message exchanges in order to identify
the client-facing interfaces, e.g. using the Serial Number or other hardcoded information.
Then, a reference host that is responsible for providing configuration to the client
host can obtain Topology information from the DHCP server.</t>
      <t>In DHCPv6, a Relay Agent can encapsulate the DHCP message from the client in a new
DHCP message along with any options it chooses to add to provide information to the DHCP server.
This mode of operation also supports networks that include a hierarchy of switches.</t>
      <t>However, if the client only supports IPv4 and cannot easily be replaced or updated,
this approach does not work, as DHCPv4 support for relays is much more
limited. For instance, there is no support in DHCPv4 for hierarchical
modes of deployment, as the specifications prohibit chaining of Relay
Agent Information Options (RAIOs) <xref target="RFC3046"/>.</t>
      <t>A typical example where Topology Discovery is needed for host configuration is
the switched fronthaul in the Radio Access Network (see <xref target="usecase"/>).
However, the specified approach in this document is not limited to that example.</t>
      <t>This document specifies how to provide Topology Discover using
Relay Agent functionality for legacy IPv4 clients using DHCPv4-over-DHCPv6
(DHCP 4o6) <xref target="RFC7341"/>. No new protocols or extensions are needed, instead
this document specifies an amendment to <xref target="RFC7341"/> that allows a Relay Agent
to perform the 4o6 DHCP en- and decapsultion instead of the client in order to
address the specific scenario that is detailed in <xref target="l2discipv4"/>.</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="conventions-and-definitions">
      <name>Conventions and Definitions</name>
      <t>The following terms and acronyms are used in this document:</t>
      <ul spacing="normal">
        <li>
          <t>4o6
 The architecture, the procedures and the protocols described in the
 DHCPv4-over-DHCPv6 document <xref target="RFC7341"/>.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>4o6RA
 The 4o6 Relay Agent is the part of an LDRA implementing 4o6</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>DHCP Relay Agent  </t>
          <t>
This is a concept in all of the protocols, BOOTP <xref target="RFC0951"/> <xref target="RFC1542"/>, DHCPv4
<xref target="RFC2131"/> <xref target="RFC2132"/>, and DHCPv6 <xref target="RFC8415"/>, although the details differ
between the protocols.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Lightweight DHCPv6 Relay Agent (LDRA)  </t>
          <t>
This is an extension of the original DHCPv6 Relay Agent mechanism,
to support also Layer 2 devices performing a Relay Agent function <xref target="RFC6221"/>.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Relay Agent Information Option (RAIO)  </t>
          <t>
This is a DHCP option defined in <xref target="RFC3046"/>. Also commonly referred
 to as "Option 82". RAIO options were later extended to be able to
 carry suboptions <xref target="RFC6925"/>.</t>
        </li>
      </ul>
      <t>The key words "<bcp14>MUST</bcp14>", "<bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14>", "<bcp14>REQUIRED</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHALL</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHALL
NOT</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHOULD NOT</bcp14>", "<bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14>", "<bcp14>NOT RECOMMENDED</bcp14>",
"<bcp14>MAY</bcp14>", and "<bcp14>OPTIONAL</bcp14>" in this document are to be interpreted as
described in BCP 14 <xref target="RFC2119"/> <xref target="RFC8174"/> when, and only when, they
appear in all capitals, as shown here.</t>
      <?line -18?>

</section>
    <section anchor="usecase">
      <name>Example Use Case: Switched Fronthaul</name>
      <t>In Radio Access Networks (RANs) the Fronthaul is the network segment
that connects Radio Units, the distributed radio elements in a mobile network,
to other network elements. The aggregation
of Radio Unit devices (also known as Switched Fronthaul) hides the relationship
between the Radio Units themselves and the physical ports where they are connected.
The Radio Units are the client hosts in the switched Fronthaul network and
need to be configured based on their Topology.</t>
      <figure anchor="l2_switched_fh">
        <name>Layer 2 Switched Fronthaul Example</name>
        <artwork><![CDATA[
     +--------+
     |  RU1   |     P1 +-+------+     |                   |
     |        +--------| | L2RA |     |  +----+------+    |
     +--------+        | +------+     |  |    | L3RA |    |
                       |  L2    |     +--|    +------+    |
     +--------+     P2 | switch |     |  |           |    |
     |  RU2   +--------|  #1    +-----|  |   Router  +----|
     |        |        +--------+     |  +-----------+    |  +---------+
     +--------+                       |                   |  |         |
                                      |                   +--| DHCP    |
     +--------+                       |                   |  | Server  |
     |  RU3   |     P1 +-+------+     |                   |  |   #1    |
     |        +--------| | L2RA |     |  +-----------+    |  +---------+
     +--------+        | +------+     |  |           |    |
                       |  L2    |     +--| Baseband  |    |
     +--------+     P2 | switch |     |  |   Unit    |    |
     |  RU4   +--------|  #2    +-----|  |           +----|
     |        |        +--------+     |  +-----------+    |
     +--------+                       |                   |
]]></artwork>
      </figure>
      <t><xref target="l2_switched_fh"/> shows multiple Radio Units that are connected
to one Baseband Unit by means of a Layer 2 switched network.
The Baseband Unit is the central processing unit that handles baseband information.
A Baseband Unit is often placed rather centrally, while the Radio Units need to
be distributed to be co-located with or near the antennas.
Traffic between Radio Units and Bandband Units is both IP-based and Layer-2-based
and may pass a hierarchy of L2 switches.</t>
      <t>In order to properly address the Radio Unit, the Baseband Unit needs to associate
the Radio Unit's MAC address to the L2 switch and respective port
where the Radio Unit is connected. To realize this device configuration
in the Switched Fronthaul network, DHCP can be used to discover the network Topology.</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="existing">
      <name>Existing DHCP-based Solutions for Topology Discovery</name>
      <section anchor="l2discipv6">
        <name>IPv6 Clients using DHCPv6</name>
        <t>If the network is fully IPv6 enabled, DHCPv6 <xref target="RFC8415"/> can be used for Topology Discovery.
This solution exploits DHCPv6 Relay Agent support in the server, whilst Lightweight DHCPv6
Relay Agents (LDRA) <xref target="RFC6221"/> are implemented in the L2 switches to inform DHCPv6 server
about the L2 Topology.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="l2discipv4">
        <name>Clients with Dual Connectivity and 4o6 DHCP support</name>
        <t>When the client needs an IPv4 address but is dual connected and can support
DHCPv4-over-DHCPv6 <xref target="RFC7341"/>, DHCPv6 <xref target="RFC8415"/> with a DHCPv4-over-DHCPv6 compliant DHCP server
can be used for Topology Discovery whereas DHCP is used still for IP address assignment.</t>
        <t>An example network with 4o6 compliant clients can be sketched as follows:</t>
        <figure anchor="l2_switched_4o6">
          <name>Layer 2 Topology discover with 4o6</name>
          <artwork><![CDATA[
     +---------+
     |   4o6   |    P1 +-+------+     |                   |  +---------+
     | Client  +-------| | LDRA |     |  +----+------+    |  |  4o6    |
     +---------+       | +------+     |  |    | L3RA |    +--|  DHCP   |
                       |  L2    |     +--|    +------+    |  | Server  |
     +---------+    P2 | switch |     |  |           |    |  |         |
     |   4o6   +-------|        +-----|  |   Router  +----|  +---------+
     | Client  |       +--------+     |  +-----------+    |
     +---------+                      |                   |


]]></artwork>
        </figure>
        <t>In <xref target="l2_switched_4o6"/> the client supports <xref target="RFC7341"/> by implementing the 4o6 encapsulation
whereas the intermediate nodes implement LDRA <xref target="RFC6221"/> or L3RA <xref target="RFC8415"/> and finally
the DHCP server is 4o6 DHCP capable <xref target="RFC7341"/>.</t>
        <t>Still, <xref target="RFC7341"/> does not provide a solution for legacy IPv4 clients
that respectively do not support 4o6 encapsulation.</t>
      </section>
    </section>
    <section anchor="l2discipv44o6leg">
      <name>Layer 2 Topogoy Discovery using 4o6 DHCP with legacy IPv4 clients</name>
      <t>This document extends <xref target="RFC7341"/> to enable a deployment scenario where the 4o6
encapsulation is implemented at the Relay Agent instead of the DHCP client.
This makes it possible to enable Topology Discovery for legacy IPv4 DHCP clients
through a 4o6-DHCP-enabled network.</t>
      <figure anchor="l2_switched_4o6_leg">
        <name>Layer 2 architecture with 4o6 and legacy client</name>
        <artwork><![CDATA[
     +---------+
     |   4o6   |    P1 +-+------+     |                   |  +---------+
     | Client  +-------| | LDRA |     |  +----+------+    |  |  4o6    |
     +---------+       | +------+     |  |    | L3RA |    +--|  DHCP   |
                       |  L2    |     +--|    +------+    |  | Server  |
     +---------+       | switch |     |  |           |    |  +---------+
     | Legacy  |    P2 +------+ +-----|  |   Router  +----|
     | Client  +-------+ 4o6  | |     |  +-----------+    |  +---------+
     +---------+       +------+-+     |                   |  | Legacy  |
                                                          +--|  DHCP   |
                                                          |  | Server  |
                                                          |  +---------+
]]></artwork>
      </figure>
      <t>The new scenario, not described in <xref target="RFC7341"/>, is shown in <xref target="l2_switched_4o6_leg"/>.
In such a scenario, the 4o6 encapsulation is implemented in the Relay Agent deployed
in the edge L2 switch, or in general in the edge device providing connectivity
to the legacy client. In this case it is up to the Relay Agent to provide the full
4o6 DHCP set of functionality whereas the legacy client is not aware of being served
via a 4o6 DHCP service.</t>
      <t>This new 4o6 Relay Agent (4o6RA), as specified in this document, exchanges DHCP messages
between clients and servers using the message formats established in <xref target="RFC8415"/>.
To maintain interoperability with existing DHCP relays and servers,
the message format is unchanged from <xref target="RFC8415"/>. The 4o6RA implements
the same message types as a normal DHCPv6 Relay Agent <xref section="6" sectionFormat="of" target="RFC7341"/>. They are:
-  Relay-Forward Messages
-  Relay-Reply Messages</t>
      <t>In this specification, the 4o6RA creates the DHCPV4-QUERY Message
and encapsulates the DHCP request message received from the legacy DHCPv4 client.</t>
      <t>When DHCPV4-RESPONSE Message is received by the 4o6 Relay Agent,
it looks for the DHCPv4 Message option within this message.
If this option is not found, the DHCPv4-response message <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be discarded.
If the DHCPv4 Message option is present, the 4o6RA <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> extract the DHCPv4
message and forward the encapsulated DHCPv4-response to the legacy DHCPv4 client.</t>
      <t>An Layer 2 Relay Agent receiving DHCPV4-QUERY or DHCPV4-RESPONSE messages
will handle them as specified in Section 6 of <xref target="RFC6221"/>.</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="seccons">
      <name>Security Considerations</name>
      <t>This documents applies 4o6 DHCP in a scenario where legacy IPv4 clients are
connected to 4o6 DHCP Relay Agent that performs the en- and decapsulation. This document
does not change anything else in the 4o6 DHCP speacification and therefore the
security consideration of <xref target="RFC7341"/> still apply.</t>
      <t>The legacy IPv4 client is not aware of this mechanism, however, even
when 4o6 DHCP is used, the client does not have any control about the
information provided by the Relay agent. As such this change does not
provide any additional secruity concerns.</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="iana-considerations">
      <name>IANA Considerations</name>
      <t>This document has no IANA actions.</t>
    </section>
  </middle>
  <back>
    <references>
      <name>References</name>
      <references anchor="sec-normative-references">
        <name>Normative References</name>
        <reference anchor="RFC3046">
          <front>
            <title>DHCP Relay Agent Information Option</title>
            <author fullname="M. Patrick" initials="M." surname="Patrick"/>
            <date month="January" year="2001"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>Newer high-speed public Internet access technologies call for a high- speed modem to have a local area network (LAN) attachment to one or more customer premise hosts. It is advantageous to use the Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) as defined in RFC 2131 to assign customer premise host IP addresses in this environment. However, a number of security and scaling problems arise with such "public" DHCP use. This document describes a new DHCP option to address these issues. This option extends the set of DHCP options as defined in RFC 2132. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="3046"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC3046"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC6221">
          <front>
            <title>Lightweight DHCPv6 Relay Agent</title>
            <author fullname="D. Miles" initials="D." role="editor" surname="Miles"/>
            <author fullname="S. Ooghe" initials="S." surname="Ooghe"/>
            <author fullname="W. Dec" initials="W." surname="Dec"/>
            <author fullname="S. Krishnan" initials="S." surname="Krishnan"/>
            <author fullname="A. Kavanagh" initials="A." surname="Kavanagh"/>
            <date month="May" year="2011"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>This document proposes a Lightweight DHCPv6 Relay Agent (LDRA) that is used to insert relay agent options in DHCPv6 message exchanges identifying client-facing interfaces. The LDRA can be implemented in existing access nodes (such as Digital Subscriber Link Access Multiplexers (DSLAMs) and Ethernet switches) that do not support IPv6 control or routing functions. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="6221"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC6221"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC6925">
          <front>
            <title>The DHCPv4 Relay Agent Identifier Sub-Option</title>
            <author fullname="B. Joshi" initials="B." surname="Joshi"/>
            <author fullname="R. Desetti" initials="R." surname="Desetti"/>
            <author fullname="M. Stapp" initials="M." surname="Stapp"/>
            <date month="April" year="2013"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>This document defines a new Relay Agent Identifier sub-option for the Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) Relay Agent Information option. The sub-option carries a value that uniquely identifies the relay agent device within the administrative domain. The value is normally administratively configured in the relay agent. The sub-option allows a DHCP relay agent to include the identifier in the DHCP messages it sends.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="6925"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC6925"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC7341">
          <front>
            <title>DHCPv4-over-DHCPv6 (DHCP 4o6) Transport</title>
            <author fullname="Q. Sun" initials="Q." surname="Sun"/>
            <author fullname="Y. Cui" initials="Y." surname="Cui"/>
            <author fullname="M. Siodelski" initials="M." surname="Siodelski"/>
            <author fullname="S. Krishnan" initials="S." surname="Krishnan"/>
            <author fullname="I. Farrer" initials="I." surname="Farrer"/>
            <date month="August" year="2014"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>IPv4 connectivity is still needed as networks migrate towards IPv6. Users require IPv4 configuration even if the uplink to their service provider supports IPv6 only. This document describes a mechanism for obtaining IPv4 configuration information dynamically in IPv6 networks by carrying DHCPv4 messages over DHCPv6 transport. Two new DHCPv6 messages and two new DHCPv6 options are defined for this purpose.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="7341"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC7341"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC8415">
          <front>
            <title>Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)</title>
            <author fullname="T. Mrugalski" initials="T." surname="Mrugalski"/>
            <author fullname="M. Siodelski" initials="M." surname="Siodelski"/>
            <author fullname="B. Volz" initials="B." surname="Volz"/>
            <author fullname="A. Yourtchenko" initials="A." surname="Yourtchenko"/>
            <author fullname="M. Richardson" initials="M." surname="Richardson"/>
            <author fullname="S. Jiang" initials="S." surname="Jiang"/>
            <author fullname="T. Lemon" initials="T." surname="Lemon"/>
            <author fullname="T. Winters" initials="T." surname="Winters"/>
            <date month="November" year="2018"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>This document describes the Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6): an extensible mechanism for configuring nodes with network configuration parameters, IP addresses, and prefixes. Parameters can be provided statelessly, or in combination with stateful assignment of one or more IPv6 addresses and/or IPv6 prefixes. DHCPv6 can operate either in place of or in addition to stateless address autoconfiguration (SLAAC).</t>
              <t>This document updates the text from RFC 3315 (the original DHCPv6 specification) and incorporates prefix delegation (RFC 3633), stateless DHCPv6 (RFC 3736), an option to specify an upper bound for how long a client should wait before refreshing information (RFC 4242), a mechanism for throttling DHCPv6 clients when DHCPv6 service is not available (RFC 7083), and relay agent handling of unknown messages (RFC 7283). In addition, this document clarifies the interactions between models of operation (RFC 7550). As such, this document obsoletes RFC 3315, RFC 3633, RFC 3736, RFC 4242, RFC 7083, RFC 7283, and RFC 7550.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8415"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8415"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC2119">
          <front>
            <title>Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels</title>
            <author fullname="S. Bradner" initials="S." surname="Bradner"/>
            <date month="March" year="1997"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>In many standards track documents several words are used to signify the requirements in the specification. These words are often capitalized. This document defines these words as they should be interpreted in IETF documents. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="14"/>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="2119"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC2119"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC8174">
          <front>
            <title>Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words</title>
            <author fullname="B. Leiba" initials="B." surname="Leiba"/>
            <date month="May" year="2017"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>RFC 2119 specifies common key words that may be used in protocol specifications. This document aims to reduce the ambiguity by clarifying that only UPPERCASE usage of the key words have the defined special meanings.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="14"/>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8174"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8174"/>
        </reference>
      </references>
      <references anchor="sec-informative-references">
        <name>Informative References</name>
        <reference anchor="RFC0951">
          <front>
            <title>Bootstrap Protocol</title>
            <author fullname="W.J. Croft" initials="W.J." surname="Croft"/>
            <author fullname="J. Gilmore" initials="J." surname="Gilmore"/>
            <date month="September" year="1985"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>This RFC describes an IP/UDP bootstrap protocol (BOOTP) which allows a diskless client machine to discover its own IP address, the address of a server host, and the name of a file to be loaded into memory and executed. The bootstrap operation can be thought of as consisting of TWO PHASES. This RFC describes the first phase, which could be labeled `address determination and bootfile selection'. After this address and filename information is obtained, control passes to the second phase of the bootstrap where a file transfer occurs. The file transfer will typically use the TFTP protocol, since it is intended that both phases reside in PROM on the client. However BOOTP could also work with other protocols such as SFTP or FTP. This RFC suggests a proposed protocol for the ARPA-Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="951"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC0951"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC1542">
          <front>
            <title>Clarifications and Extensions for the Bootstrap Protocol</title>
            <author fullname="W. Wimer" initials="W." surname="Wimer"/>
            <date month="October" year="1993"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>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. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="1542"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC1542"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC2132">
          <front>
            <title>DHCP Options and BOOTP Vendor Extensions</title>
            <author fullname="S. Alexander" initials="S." surname="Alexander"/>
            <author fullname="R. Droms" initials="R." surname="Droms"/>
            <date month="March" year="1997"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>This document specifies the current set of DHCP options. Future options will be specified in separate RFCs. The current list of valid options is also available in ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/iana/assignments. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="2132"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC2132"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC2131">
          <front>
            <title>Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol</title>
            <author fullname="R. Droms" initials="R." surname="Droms"/>
            <date month="March" year="1997"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>The Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) provides a framework for passing configuration information to hosts on a TCPIP network. DHCP is based on the Bootstrap Protocol (BOOTP), adding the capability of automatic allocation of reusable network addresses and additional configuration options. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="2131"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC2131"/>
        </reference>
      </references>
    </references>
    <?line 303?>

<section numbered="false" anchor="acknowledgments">
      <name>Acknowledgments</name>
      <t>The authors would also like to acknowledge interesting discussions in
this problem space with Sarah Gannon, Ines Ramadza and Siddharth Sharma.</t>
    </section>
  </back>
  <!-- ##markdown-source:
H4sIANO9u2UAA+0b23Ibt/UdX4FSD7VrkrVkxXE0udGSHCuVJUWSm8l0Ohlw
FyQRLRfsYlcKYynf0g/pU/tjPRcAiyUpW076WI4jLrHAwbnfgAwGA1GbutB7
snfwev/selfaa11Jen4ub0w9k+e6UEs5muqylhfNYmGruifUeFzpa1y1//pM
7trn6bSeyFStp7Za7klX50LkNivVHDbJKzWpBwBiYiozyGcZ/re43h3grvz8
fFCpwdOnwjXjuXHO2LJeLmDp0eHlK1E287Gu9kQO8PdEZkunS9e4PVlXjRaA
zzOhKq0Ar6Oy1lWpAZcbW11NK9ssENsl4GEy+dq6Wu7bcmKmTaVq2KQnrvQS
puZ7Qg4kYiKuddnALlI+ZLWUjGbve9jOlFP5DS7C8SkwsRnDm7mpflJXf76X
6p4QqqlntkIUYKGUpgTS9ofyjBlGY8zI/UI1ubGdN7aaqtL8QgjtycPKZM7Z
kl7puTLFnsx41dAL4Gvt5wwzO+/seTGUf6mMm5WqTDa9aCrtZt033U33jcts
uqOjJcMrv+TrKQ6vbfftUI6qqyub7PWtqkwy+GHafoIFQ4UL7ifrDZD1n3/N
Cn1jyjzZ7A1KZvXVh7ckgQ6vGr+qu68obTWHxdekQvL81f6zp7vPw/PznZ3t
+PzZzifh+dNnu3H8xe42jAtTTlYhPf3skzhr+5PdnfC8s/0sfYY5YjAYSDV2
daWyWojLmXESrLGZozXn2mWVGWsnlQS71ZUq5FxnMyDbzSXsKsGA0HycIE9Q
6KnKlvKI3ERZLEGfDMBxsraycZq9htdq9iDiEX6jf3hM8HLUD3iNBhLpsiVg
aJs67CYv7cIWdrociksrVZ6DCsEeiLrLdAlytn3+GSlxC52ZiUFKABgM5Tgs
AC/PU5ivaqmKwt4gtaW+WXVa8hEMnI8eIzELXSFuop5pmkZE6BI4WebAtUwt
XFMQ4qBWtVa5tBOJk5khQ2b73OR5oYXYkuCMKps3GS15t2WSn3dCHJXS2bmO
zGZIqXtB8MoDlzP0PnNAO9cLIBQkQQtapr22Nxp43Jc3M116YtO1Uw0iA/il
zmqdI7243u/el4ahj7VsSnUD7hR2F+kOxAWQCfAclRL0YGZvcNlMkSqMW+x1
PiT6jjCaBPr6LaSgDzIDucE68N2F+QWQahyqiA9DiZScfPfOm8/dnSChggh0
VcNSnKRIlHaBXHPwKoCYgwrBO6l/RvWeanoH3h62BoxNDqvMZClaGQ4mKmMt
hTgCzxrQ1sPp0GOGEy9Aj8FiTigmATBpYbQCLlR5ZnMgItFwUGUQRh+kUemJ
rnSZaRYGk+CIn4CyGReaLGVR2WuT41ZdTfDSYiQFgUDe2XGtgKLI2NS4JpWd
0yJSY2AWMJzFwsxBrFJDQHiAICk5xNl2aWBiBOi1yngtE51ZqrCAPTkOVS5b
mcAGM2udJl0B6yaDI2p1B21PaQdp8l9zYC5ahAUz9e6jcBZCDeUmLrUjUo+s
aGCBkjMD86tstsTFDhDLZtoBI6K9mNSI2cNFoOT0UPGBO6WtpVbOFEvW2UUB
+pGjBjQLzEzyviD3pBZAl8pm4KeAWlzFFgZm4pMtD54kTgrsUBfmDayZ20qL
wswNwBvKVzABfY0CxUHnByqEM8tIdtT1XQIWaDWZKgQyzCHR4DEKu0TXSEgg
sd5zZoqlAwjPzJhkBPqE6gfLSDkEK8dRIqFTL9JH56OjU/eYTROj3N0dsHWE
GRHuD0an5gvQ6xtCO+rogTf+JVGiNZoM4U5K3dF648g0vdBy1MASpNsUSDa+
OVeYDY2yDEPFiY8jj5zWgBSEpkw5fXf3OPGNCe0AL0qKwKWRxbDgvCBYKUGr
PEnD1ZDaBiL0iYlmr1HNjkSkhjdpSooJ4APrJbEijbgh2Cau8d5YS5LAuAeS
kCeWQgBgUtvMFg4VVf9cQ+ZM0kMPz9zvh3AmHhJdkbpkn5UIm9Al2ogqf2NE
Tb21aDOCVn1jZhAdaq7BIxbkhQHNYgdDjYGkm3RzC9P3a3T6xAHA4UBPQN/p
N8oUnTCSQr5eV3OepDLQu+WceQZqla/pC2Rcf0ICMQlDKGSDNQRKiIWsdCAG
cBaYFhNIP+QlEzIyD1gjmHVJt5JJ5ex3Ph+FvVcTHMMsWyjwFphQlPL44Hwk
DSoyQkNaEXWAQ+JJRSgQpCHvpNA2M71gv18UQVKRir58eXp6ecbIYaoKykHP
mKre3fU9RQCSRjFRDTMwgcUZJBGmlcYxFabxAuqjZjqjDVnCwDQzgZAK4MZg
91qXXWyIL8dmOoN3+HdDUiEfISMed4gsWxMJBNrKTA0Y5yYIMW3uYyXYemWK
TMdqCZq7AwhfG3BQwRiQ393IGxxAmuQQ/umkdQ/MDpjwT6REMuSoCzuDdgdb
aJ20HCF6UK3MKdhRagI5G8LB2Oxkz2/wYqc3lLhJDOM36MoxPfC+JGfnCPFQ
YQpTU9mWqarCGDoOq5guqHeILlRSqLoxKuaw15u3F5e9Pn/Lk1N6Pj/87u3R
+eEBPl+8Hh0fxwfhZ1y8Pn17fNA+tSv3T9+8OTw54MUwKjtDovdm9EOPVa13
enZ5dHoyOu6tBwA0dSaMUsFFpTEOKCc6tvpy/+zf/9zeBQL/QGq8/RmpNP54
sf0pOB1Kxnk34jX/BLVaCgg+WlXBmsAVmlqhFQH/HUSRUmLYRDX4G3Lm73vy
83G22N790g8gwZ3BwLPOIPFsfWRtMTNxw9CGbSI3O+MrnO7iO/qh8zvwPRn8
/KsCVFUOtl989aUQ6KoPffrwFkrMfQjke/Ii5AGvYh4AZVWI85TabkoIKFM5
gUQFrbld6v1iqD6dnnLxiIHEl0nOw3sLIcKxH4d4UoP4G9SGil5qdqOO8+G5
HUP4iWUVBkGuD8I+YfqQA8V0WkGwRzMRmHLF7aLXeES+5KpEjQDVWOfBY8j6
MNFD7DCZJJObmYVI/WJCB/6eO11cp6FotnSUs3HWyxkbainZQSwaqZzpwFI8
Ly00XUjO3Lq4AhNgX4HJx1rdKMcK4ysXt6ZKylvx66+/UhdGPhn4zxP+fSvl
+dttfoDP2TbM8HOehAlrn1vRfRWB3sLY8Q4EyNswgV6lAG9X8YhA5eq+t/x9
/CwA9Gs3ICRh2xalJ4hJu8l79j3bgSXM6xbn2y7klN7ztztdeuXWdgvWrz23
Dfp4Hlzl1TrTIr1xJOKcjj25j3HrvNg01g7fy8UHACLOUpSU7xHlQzG6oBK1
y99nccEDdZGHWQwfq5gfz+x7tDSl9KO09CWY7Bg9SWftQ7WUnN3KvsTFXbmi
pTst2BWcf7+W/h41IM/0bk9uFTs/Bp/34wSSVTxh+aIX0sAN0cuHuB7ELqxV
0tWQOmAWgF0BKJAwDnZduKq7rpkCDQTQKAzi63gJKaoqHXcSAybRMXt3zG69
u9JHRyivauwPU/niqARt8DUhAKlvXkAUGYeVnc7XaB2inUDKKH3fBGp8jIt+
h2KJjUsMnavhyscJCGed4Bsix6CweOyUc8uJmteQVSEQBYlbWSooBS4rNcFq
MUTETgQD/F7Cn4go5dFjCNpQfw84HOErYt5gh0cEjmC7dKGcW+0xHe+kbaaj
pOEIXIQiANLAtJZtkeEMo8s1pJ5bZs7ZzAClorvoj06+Ge23ELl9FnFY6dpS
gBcxvqcJh0m6w5Cc2NCV9YkxpSPd/ozwgX6DZse2Mjla3+al0hkQjO3fNP9K
Ij3mfiDp0O/wQriwRcPlBLZINrST3m1pvwzsaWuLu8/76+0TKC63YmPgOeaN
kw4mQO2kAYVkALrEyibvbyhMO3RtRsr3Lp3HHYqmRWFRxzYUk0lLj9Iniixs
Fa7eUMuKToOci9m0hCQHEcv82FxI9ZO64GS0ASHeVfDJjJ+dimYrcpTs7aAB
57DPamOusX+F+hZbPYGkhOG7wPDvZz4t9WkjK7kqfbvVqzLYOXV0cIv23MI3
YwNosaFPkrRHNoqNm9ObOixQEy8KA44j7T+LD4uZM2bf4EWkaS7oIlR2uOLo
LFIFdmym5ZzPi0Zl7JIG7SPkkIEtLqEF6PFwV5rNTTnfrnJ7m9LjJD8mgD58
PTgn2QCIZd++opzk4P3JMv3j/dfibAy0D8icOSP2idvvSqM35G0rGD0wp96Q
krbMbnnkP+9JsN/L7NvO+o/KY+5LZDbnMWJjJoPUrKQy6wd5QWt7XIZ3sxkY
p0ZxtPd4vJI2kiFX6fQkQ8+4PZPCkBMMDd9SZ2auc4yKsqTTjgiB1TL1hmCG
pEypJ0BnMsHmXsGHgInVoxVHPwYYUH+r23i9QPvud4iIRz7hAEC1vv+ezj53
HDoHq7klGMF7rnGBYmQqjKlNnRHHuoj82iF+8CepV4bZMOVu9WCDm3xdQUHM
4KAIxLVHS20rvs0usK3cQRyZmkYkxTGm067uHgQw+/35Op8DqitN54kL6/jg
tEVog2de5XoCEFlfUV9ZIaoUBAY+3re58f89a8T7f+BZadZDPOsGHh2zGD2z
d9qtH9C6WOXvE2bc7W+tpiM1AYkP1fcR+Qe2LjZ9HiaoB3w2Ceq3Akp5dE/8
+BEMcDWGpEdkbdKDDtlbK9soBhQqT/Ess70HhO6x04nv5HwmtNDNhlCEyKD7
xvs3eOKuOteLNsScVacVzp4Tp8VuEOpC/07n0yTP7ks6xo+XrdJJvq7q3PuI
ybTw1VyHI0N55A8rsO0tuXJrFqHyS9FKDqLxFVY1os3NNZ0Hdk+f0/Da2TWc
iIerQZCIIrYUK3NxbRT70DaCAlXhmPw91674uCMeyK8ew/STmzvpLRMXm9sh
lqHicOB2yV2deHWF2hJOaleDdzduligNpwJ06WyuIKXACzWUWdBFk7FhvqCC
6rQqDRc3ko37Yn1PEk7JNOR8hSbdNZzYpgey/tKDmrew8JIplg544QbBbjyM
fPfuQvM54nO6vtFeBbj0nfw9MZC8ZPDKViDJXL4JDI1vzkGXl+24CNrWuTIS
TQUQz0Bjan8AgWj9dXfw3dvD8x8CDGqWJDeL2pnAw380Gu+1eTornWlIgfL2
rpFXQn/HJV60owrSb3Z+eHF2enJxGPbje1UeEGSVwagTXvUFmE1h7RU3EwI+
sEOA4U9QUe5BKT2SQ+4XYDtrEdwDWsbENmXeT2AN/OWuVox0bsd9rAyYjwcq
R5P37G7wZo52ZAgtvwkKJGZ4tzNZLOINrJLKVBIv+ZmW9fkaal0Ps8pmqE+D
v041jbkbLCHK21ZrIon2eoOlMDcM6QBqze47uts9CN/Cl02FdriPl+VyfwEM
M1inM7wPvpq40i2sAu+uRKdEx3MrSeqmrBjsRHSuSUYIHdeKSbs/0Xeezd1r
LZypyw5aItYH7BHwihwq2FTqAn152b0pAwxSrc2F07pKw6bEReECX7KUL5GD
PmHnPgQyZOmP39fpXvPvXuXD/Qa82MRXqOAvlWFlwlpuePTTGi9SOlPXRCfi
WFe2kLG3JNJ7fz5QRYs9by92DuXIcazmsMesCxuIWGqV1Fg1HM3AKWdV43mT
6arEZixeyh2djFbUaLXowQutpeWZirSS1kKGI8cqu0IoowxPZKFOmLLHfrfH
/4+Czr/oTRTIMuYtfLffyRvbFDlfDCnMFRmeikB8Las5vKB7aJzzd1n5VhYQ
CWXJHFRCZT5fulCVmslv8GIi+OOjUuNx9VzlvyjSlAuT5zNV4UT4mquh+C+p
mo7t9zEAAA==

-->

</rfc>
