Network Working Group Vivek Kashyap
Request for Comments: 4390 IBM
Category: Standards Track April 2006
Network Working Group Vivek Kashyap
Request for Comments: 4390 IBM
Category: Standards Track April 2006
Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) over InfiniBand
InfiniBand上的动态主机配置协议（DHCP）
Status of This Memo
关于下段备忘
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.
本文件规定了互联网社区的互联网标准跟踪协议，并要求进行讨论和提出改进建议。有关本协议的标准化状态和状态，请参考当前版本的“互联网官方协议标准”（STD 1）。本备忘录的分发不受限制。
Copyright Notice
版权公告
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
版权所有（C）互联网协会（2006年）。
Abstract
摘要
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.
Infiniband上的IP（IPoIB）链路层地址为20个八位字节长。这大于动态主机配置协议/引导协议（DHCP/BOOTP）消息中为硬件地址保留的16个八位字节。当通过IPoIB网络使用DHCP消息字段时，上述不平等性对其使用施加了限制。本文档介绍在IPoIB上实现DHCP时DHCP消息字段的使用。
Table of Contents
目录
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
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
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].
动态主机配置协议（DHCP）提供了一个框架，用于将配置信息传递给IP网络上的主机[RFC2131]。DHCP基于引导协议（BOOTP）[RFC951]，增加了自动分配可重用网络地址的能力和附加配置选项[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.
DHCP服务器从客户端接收广播请求。当客户端尚未分配IP地址时，DHCP服务器使用客户端接口的硬件地址单播回复。DHCP消息中的“chaddr”字段携带客户端的硬件地址。
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.
“chaddr”字段的长度为16个八位字节。IPoIB链路层地址的长度为20个八位字节[RFC4391]。因此，IPoIB链路层地址将不适合“chaddr”字段，这使得DHCP服务器无法单播回复到客户端。
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.
为了确保互操作性，必须澄清字段的用法和DHCP交互的方法。本文档介绍DHCP某些字段的IPoIB特定用法。有关DHCP的机制和每个字段的说明，请参见[RFC2131]。
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].
本文件中的关键词“必须”、“不得”、“必需”、“应”、“不应”、“应”、“不应”、“建议”、“可”和“可选”应按照[RFC2119]中所述进行解释。
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.
如上所述，链路层地址对DHCP服务器不可用，因为链路层地址大于“chaddr”字段长度。因此，服务器无法将其答复单播给客户端。因此，当IPoIB地址解析协议（ARP）不可能时，即在客户端不知道其IP地址的情况下，DHCP客户端必须通过设置广播标志来请求服务器发送广播应答。
[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.
[RFC1542]不鼓励使用广播回复。但在IPoIB的情况下，这是必要的，因为服务器不接收链路层地址。要在子网启动时取消广播同步，[RFC2131]建议客户端在启动服务器发现之前随机等待一段时间（1到10秒）。相同的超时将分散由于使用广播位而生成的DHCP服务器广播响应。
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.
客户端硬件地址“chaddr”在子网中是唯一的，因此可用于标识客户端接口。但如果没有唯一的“chaddr”，则必须使用另一个唯一的客户端标识符。
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.
DHCP协议规定，“客户端标识符”选项可用作客户端的唯一标识值[RFC2132]。此值在客户端子网中必须是唯一的。
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].
“客户端标识符”选项包括类型和标识符对。“客户端标识符”选项中包括的标识符可以由硬件地址或任何其他唯一值（例如客户端的DNS名称）组成。使用硬件地址时，类型字段应为[ARP参数]中列出的ARP硬件类型之一。
A DHCP client, when working over an IPoIB interface, MUST follow the following rules:
DHCP客户端在IPoIB接口上工作时，必须遵循以下规则：
"htype" (hardware address type) MUST be 32 [ARPPARAM].
“htype”（硬件地址类型）必须是32[arParam]。
"hlen" (hardware address length) MUST be 0.
“hlen”（硬件地址长度）必须为0。
"chaddr" (client hardware address) field MUST be zeroed.
“chaddr”（客户端硬件地址）字段必须归零。
"client-identifier" option MUST be used in DHCP messages.
DHCP消息中必须使用“客户端标识符”选项。
The "client identifier" used in DHCP messages MUST conform to [RFC4361].
DHCP消息中使用的“客户端标识符”必须符合[RFC4361]。
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.
IPoIB上的DHCP客户端必须在DHCPDISCOVER和DHCPREQUEST消息中设置广播标志（并将“ciaddr”设置为零），以确保服务器（或中继代理）向客户端广播其应答。
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.
注：如[RFC2131]所述，“ciaddr”必须在绑定、续订或重新绑定状态下填写客户端的IP地址；因此，不得设置广播标志。在这些情况下，DHCP服务器将DHCPACK消息单播到“ciaddr”中的地址。链接地址将由ARP解析。
[RFC2131] describes the security considerations relevant to DHCP. This document does not introduce any new issues.
[RFC2131]描述了与DHCP相关的安全注意事项。本文件未介绍任何新问题。
This document borrows extensively from [RFC2855]. Roy Larsen pointed out the length discrepancy between the IPoIB link address and DHCP's "chaddr" field.
本文件广泛借鉴了[RFC2855]。Roy Larsen指出了IPoIB链接地址和DHCP的“chaddr”字段之间的长度差异。
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2119]Bradner，S.，“RFC中用于表示需求水平的关键词”，BCP 14，RFC 2119，1997年3月。
[RFC2131] Droms, R., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol", RFC 2131, March 1997.
[RFC2131]Droms，R.，“动态主机配置协议”，RFC21311997年3月。
[RFC2132] Alexander, S. and R. Droms, "DHCP Options and BOOTP Vendor Extensions", RFC 2132, March 1997.
[RFC2132]Alexander，S.和R.Droms，“DHCP选项和BOOTP供应商扩展”，RFC 21321997年3月。
[RFC951] Housley, R., Horting, T., and P. Yee, "TELNET Authentication Using KEA and SKIPJACK", RFC 2951, September 2000.
[RFC951]Housley，R.，Horting，T.，和P.Yee，“使用KEA和SKIPJACK的TELNET身份验证”，RFC 295119000年9月。
[RFC4391] Chu, J. and V. Kashyap "Transmission of IP over InfiniBand (IPoIB)", RFC 4391, April 2006.
[RFC4391]Chu，J.和V.Kashyap，“InfiniBand上的IP传输（IPoIB）”，RFC 4391，2006年4月。
[ARPPARAM] http://www.iana.org/numbers.html
[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.
[RFC4361]Lemon，T.和B.Sommerfeld，“动态主机配置协议第四版（DHCPv4）的节点特定客户端标识符”，RFC 4361，2006年2月。
[RFC2855] Fujisawa, K., "DHCP for IEEE 1394", RFC 2855, June 2000.
[RFC2855]Fujisawa，K.，“用于IEEE 1394的DHCP”，RFC 28552000年6月。
[RFC1542] Wimer, W., "Clarifications and Extensions for the Bootstrap Protocol", RFC 1542, October 1993.
[RFC1542]Wimer，W.“引导协议的澄清和扩展”，RFC 1542，1993年10月。
Author's Address
作者地址
Vivek Kashyap 15350, SW Koll Parkway Beaverton, OR 97006 USA
Vivek Kashyap 15350，美国比弗顿西南科尔公园路，或97006
Phone: +1 503 578 3422
EMail: vivk@us.ibm.com
Phone: +1 503 578 3422
EMail: vivk@us.ibm.com
Full Copyright Statement
完整版权声明
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
版权所有（C）互联网协会（2006年）。
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.
本文件受BCP 78中包含的权利、许可和限制的约束，除其中规定外，作者保留其所有权利。
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.
本文件及其包含的信息是按“原样”提供的，贡献者、他/她所代表或赞助的组织（如有）、互联网协会和互联网工程任务组不承担任何明示或暗示的担保，包括但不限于任何保证，即使用本文中的信息不会侵犯任何权利，或对适销性或特定用途适用性的任何默示保证。
Intellectual Property
知识产权
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.
IETF对可能声称与本文件所述技术的实施或使用有关的任何知识产权或其他权利的有效性或范围，或此类权利下的任何许可可能或可能不可用的程度，不采取任何立场；它也不表示它已作出任何独立努力来确定任何此类权利。有关RFC文件中权利的程序信息，请参见BCP 78和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.
向IETF秘书处披露的知识产权副本和任何许可证保证，或本规范实施者或用户试图获得使用此类专有权利的一般许可证或许可的结果，可从IETF在线知识产权存储库获取，网址为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.
IETF邀请任何相关方提请其注意任何版权、专利或专利申请，或其他可能涵盖实施本标准所需技术的专有权利。请将信息发送至IETF的IETF-ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgement
确认
Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA).
RFC编辑器功能的资金由IETF行政支持活动（IASA）提供。