💾 Archived View for gemini.bortzmeyer.org › rfc-mirror › rfc3361.txt captured on 2022-03-01 at 19:27:55.
⬅️ Previous capture (2021-11-30)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Network Working Group H. Schulzrinne
Request for Comments: 3361 Columbia University
Category: Standards Track August 2002
Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP-for-IPv4)
Option for Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Servers
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 (2002). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
This document defines a Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
(DHCP-for-IPv4) option that contains a list of domain names or IPv4
addresses that can be mapped to one or more Session Initiation
Protocol (SIP) outbound proxy servers. This is one of the many
methods that a SIP client can use to obtain the addresses of such a
local SIP server.
1. Terminology
DHCP client: A DHCP [1] client is an Internet host that uses
DHCP to obtain configuration parameters such as a network
address.
DHCP server: A DHCP server is an Internet host that returns
configuration parameters to DHCP clients.
SIP server: As defined in RFC 3261 [2]. This server MUST be an
outbound proxy server, as defined in [3]. In the context of
this document, a SIP server refers to the host the SIP
server is running on.
SIP client: As defined in RFC 3261. The client can be a user
agent client or the client portion of a proxy server. In
the context of this document, a SIP client refers to the
host the SIP client is running on.
Schulzrinne Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 3361 DHCPv4 Option for SIP Servers August 2002
In this document, the key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED",
"SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY",
and "OPTIONAL" are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [4].
2. Introduction
The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) [2] is an application-layer
control protocol that can establish, modify and terminate multimedia
sessions or calls. A SIP system has a number of logical components:
user agents, proxy servers, redirect servers and registrars. User
agents MAY contain SIP clients, proxy servers always do.
This document specifies a DHCP option [1,5] that allows SIP clients
to locate a local SIP server that is to be used for all outbound SIP
requests, a so-called outbound proxy server. (SIP clients MAY
contact the address identified in the SIP URL directly, without
involving a local SIP server. However in some circumstances, for
example, when firewalls are present, SIP clients need to use a local
server for outbound requests.) This is one of many possible
solutions for locating the outbound SIP server; manual configuration
is an example of another.
3. SIP Server DHCP Option
The SIP server DHCP option carries either a 32-bit (binary) IPv4
address or, preferably, a DNS (RFC 1035 [6]) fully-qualified domain
name to be used by the SIP client to locate a SIP server.
The option has two encodings, specified by the encoding byte ('enc')
that follows the code byte. If the encoding byte has the value 0, it
is followed by a list of domain names, as described below (Section
3.1). If the encoding byte has the value 1, it is followed by one or
more IPv4 addresses (Section 3.2). All implementations MUST support
both encodings. The 'Len' field indicates the total number of octets
in the option following the 'Len' field, including the encoding byte.
A DHCP server MUST NOT mix the two encodings in the same DHCP
message, even if it sends two different instances of the same option.
Attempts to do so would result in incorrect client behavior as DHCP
processing rules call for the concatenation of multiple instances of
an option into a single option prior to processing the option [7].
The code for this option is 120.
Schulzrinne Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 3361 DHCPv4 Option for SIP Servers August 2002
3.1 Domain Name List
If the 'enc' byte has a value of 0, the encoding byte is followed by
a sequence of labels, encoded according to Section 3.1 of RFC 1035
[6], quoted below:
Domain names in messages are expressed in terms of a sequence
of labels. Each label is represented as a one octet length
field followed by that number of octets. Since every domain
name ends with the null label of the root, a domain name is
terminated by a length byte of zero. The high order two bits
of every length octet must be zero, and the remaining six bits
of the length field limit the label to 63 octets or less. To
simplify implementations, the total length of a domain name
(i.e., label octets and label length octets) is restricted to
255 octets or less.
RFC 1035 encoding was chosen to accommodate future internationalized
domain name mechanisms.
The minimum length for this encoding is 3.
The option MAY contain multiple domain names, but these SHOULD refer
to different NAPTR records, rather than different A records. The
client MUST try the records in the order listed, applying the
mechanism described in Section 4.1 of RFC 3263 [3] for each. The
client only resolves the subsequent domain names if attempts to
contact the first one failed or yielded no common transport protocols
between client and server or denote a domain administratively
prohibited by client policy.
Use of multiple domain names is not meant to replace NAPTR and
SRV records, but rather to allow a single DHCP server to
indicate outbound proxy servers operated by multiple providers.
Clients MUST support compression according to the encoding in Section
4.1.4 of "Domain Names - Implementation And Specification" [6].
Since the domain names are supposed to be different domains,
compression will likely have little effect, however.
If the length of the domain list exceeds the maximum permissible
within a single option (254 octets), then the domain list MUST be
represented in the DHCP message as specified in [7].
Schulzrinne Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 3361 DHCPv4 Option for SIP Servers August 2002
The DHCP option for this encoding has the following format:
Code Len enc DNS name of SIP server
+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+--
| 120 | n | 0 | s1 | s2 | s3 | s4 | s5 | ...
+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+--
As an example, consider the case where the server wants to offer two
outbound proxy servers, "example.com" and "example.net". These would
be encoded as follows:
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
|120|27 | 0 | 7 |'e'|'x'|'a'|'m'|'p'|'l'|'e'| 3 |'c'|'o'|'m'| 0 |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ | 7
|'e'|'x'|'a'|'m'|'p'|'l'|'e'| 3 |'n'|'e'|'t'| 0 | +---+---+---
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
3.2 IPv4 Address List
If the 'enc' byte has a value of 1, the encoding byte is followed by
a list of IPv4 addresses indicating SIP outbound proxy servers
available to the client. Servers MUST be listed in order of
preference.
Its minimum length is 5, and the length MUST be a multiple of 4 plus
one. The DHCP option for this encoding has the following format:
Code Len enc Address 1 Address 2
+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+--
| 120 | n | 1 | a1 | a2 | a3 | a4 | a1 | ...
+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+--
4. Security Considerations
The security considerations in RFC 2131 [1], RFC 2543 [2] and RFC
3263 [3] apply. If an adversary manages to modify the response from
a DHCP server or insert its own response, a SIP user agent could be
led to contact a rogue SIP server, possibly one that then intercepts
call requests or denies service. A modified DHCP answer could also
omit host names that translated to TLS-based SIP servers, thus
facilitating intercept.
Schulzrinne Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 3361 DHCPv4 Option for SIP Servers August 2002
5. IANA Considerations
IANA has assigned a DHCP option number of 120 for the "SIP Servers
DHCP Option" defined in this document.
6. Acknowledgements
Ralph Droms, Robert Elz, Wenyu Jiang, Peter Koch, Gautam Nair, Thomas
Narten, Erik Nordmark, Jonathan Rosenberg, Kundan Singh, Sven Ubik,
Bernie Volz and Dean Willis provided useful feedback through the
evolution of this document.
7. Bibliography
[1] Droms, R., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol", RFC 2131, March
1997.
[2] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston, A.,
Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M. and E. Schooler, "SIP:
Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261, June 2002.
[3] Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "Session Initiation Protocol
(SIP): Locating SIP Servers", RFC 3263, June 2002.
[4] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to indicate requirement
levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[5] Alexander, S. and R. Droms, "DHCP options and BOOTP Vendor
Extensions", RFC 2132, March 1997.
[6] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987.
[7] Lemon, T. and S. Cheshire, "Encoding Long DHCP Options", Work in
Progress.
Schulzrinne Standards Track [Page 5]
RFC 3361 DHCPv4 Option for SIP Servers August 2002
8. Author's Address
Henning Schulzrinne
Dept. of Computer Science
Columbia University
1214 Amsterdam Avenue, MC 0401
New York, NY 10027
USA
EMail: schulzrinne@cs.columbia.edu
Schulzrinne Standards Track [Page 6]
RFC 3361 DHCPv4 Option for SIP Servers August 2002
9. Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002). All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
English.
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Schulzrinne Standards Track [Page 7]