Network Working Group                                   William A. Arbaugh
Internet Draft                                        Angelos D. Keromytis
Expires in sixth months                         University of Pennsylvania
                                                              January 2000



                      DHCP Continuation Option Code
                  <draft-ietf-dhc-options-cont-01.txt>

Status of this memo

   This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
   all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.

   Please direct comments to one of the authors (for the authors contact
   information, see the end of this document), and/or to the
   trustmgt@east.isi.edu mailing list.

   Internet Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working Groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet
   Drafts.

   Internet-Drafts draft documents are valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress".

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

   Distribution of this memo is unlimited.


Abstract

   The Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) provides a framework
   for passing configuration information to hosts on a TCP/IP network.
   Currently options are limited to an information size of 256 bytes
   because of the one-octet size of the length field.  This document
   defines a new option that permits the continuation of the previous
   option information.


. Introduction

   The Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) [1] provides a
   framework for passing configuration information to hosts on a TCP/IP
   network.  Configuration parameters and other control information are
   carried in tagged data items that are stored in the 'options' field
   of the DHCP message.  The data items themselves are also called
   "options."

   Each option is assigned a one-octet option code and an one-octet size
   field.  The one-octet size field limits the information contained in
   an option to 256 bytes.  While there exist options that permit the use
   of the sname and file fields of the header, these options only add an
   additional 192 bytes when the fields are not in use.  This document
   describes a new DHCP option for continuing the information from the
   previous option.  This option MUST not appear as the first option in
   a message.  The option preceding this one MUST have a size of 256
   bytes.


. Definition of option [TBD]

   Option code [TBD] indicates that the data contained in the option is
   a continuation of the previous option.

                Continuation
    Code   Len  option code   Data...
   +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+--------------
   | TBD | XXX | Continuation of previous option data
   +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---------------

   The example below shows how the option would work with a hypothetical
   authentication option that requires more than 255 bytes of information.

                Auth
    Code   Len  option Data...
   +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+--------------
   | 90  | 256 | 04  | d1    d2    d4     ... d255
   +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---------------
    Code   Len  Data...
   +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+--------------
   | TBD | 20  | d257 d258  d259  d260    ... d276
   +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---------------


. References

   [] Droms, R., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol", RFC 2131,
       Bucknell University, March 1997.

   [] Alexander, S. and R. Droms, "DHCP Options and BOOTP Vendor
       Extensions", RFC 2132, Lachman Associates, March 1997.


. Security Considerations

   DHCP currently provides no authentication or security mechanisms.
   Potential exposures to attack are discussed in section 7 of the DHCP
   protocol specification [1].  One of the reasons for this definition is
   to provide support for the exchange of public key certificates are
   which usually larger than 256 bytes.


.  Authors' Address

   William A. Arbaugh
   Angelos D. Keromytis
   Distributed Systems Lab -- 102 Moore
   Department of Computer and Information Sciences
   University of Pennsylvania
   200 South 33rd St.
   Philadelphia, PA. 19104-6389

   Email: {waa, angelos}@dsl.cis.upenn.edu