dhcp message exchange

Hi all,

I have attached  the dhcpdiscover message forming and sending (which I
downloaded from net).

In the function bootp_open, we have the following piece of code.

/* Bind/connect the sockets */
	if (bind_udp_sock(bootp_recv_fd, INADDR_ANY, 68) ||
	    bind_udp_sock(bootp_xmit_fd, INADDR_ANY, 0) ||
	    setsockopt(bootp_xmit_fd, SOL_SOCKET, SO_BROADCAST, 
		       (void *)&optval, sizeof(optval)) ||
	    connect_udp_sock(bootp_xmit_fd, INADDR_BROADCAST, 67))
		return -1;

But when I run this program, I am getting "Permission denied" and no message
is being sent. I hope it is due to the access to ports 67 and 68.

Is there any remedy for this?

regards.

 

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg <at> ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg

RE: dhcp message exchange

Which OS you are running this code?

If it is in Unix/Linux you need to have su privileges to run this....

Shanth

> _____________________________________________ 
> From: 	dhcwg-bounces <at> ietf.org [mailto:dhcwg-bounces <at> ietf.org]  On
> Behalf Of Suganya
> Sent:	Wednesday, March 02, 2005 12:22 PM
> To:	dhcwg <at> ietf.org
> Cc:	suganya <at> dgbmicro.com
> Subject:	[dhcwg] dhcp message exchange
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> 
> I have attached  the dhcpdiscover message forming and sending (which I
> downloaded from net).
> 
> In the function bootp_open, we have the following piece of code.
> 
> /* Bind/connect the sockets */
> 	if (bind_udp_sock(bootp_recv_fd, INADDR_ANY, 68) ||
> 	    bind_udp_sock(bootp_xmit_fd, INADDR_ANY, 0) ||
> 	    setsockopt(bootp_xmit_fd, SOL_SOCKET, SO_BROADCAST, 
> 		       (void *)&optval, sizeof(optval)) ||
> 	    connect_udp_sock(bootp_xmit_fd, INADDR_BROADCAST, 67))
> 		return -1;
> 

Request for agenda items

Please check the agenda I'm about to post to the mailing list to make sure
you're on the agenda if you've requested a slot and request an agenda slot
if you haven't requested one already.

- Ralph

Updated agenda

                           DHC WG agenda - IETF 62
                             0900 Thu 2005-03-10
                    (Last revised 2005-03-03 10:44 AM ET)
                    -------------------------------------

Administrivia                                      Ralph Droms      10 minutes
   Agenda bashing; blue sheets; scribe; Jabber scribe
   Request for milestones for dhc WG drafts

SMTP Option for DHCPv6                             Christian Cadar  10 minutes
   <draft-cadar-dhc-dhcpv6-opt-smtp-00.txt>
   Accept as dhc WG work item?

Source Address Selection Policy option for DHCPv6  T. Fujisaki      10 minutes
   <draft-hirotaka-dhc-source-address-selection-opt-01.txt>
   Accept as dhc WG work item?

DHCPv6 Relay agent RADIUS Attribute Option         Wing Cheong Lau  10 minutes
   <draft-ietf-dhc-v6-relay-radius-00.txt>
   Accept as dhc WG work item?

DHCPv6 Options for Fast Handovers                  Takeshi Ogawa    10 minutes
   <draft-ogawa-fhopt-00.txt>
   Accept as dhc WG work item?

Service-Oriented Address Assignment using DHCP     Syam Madanapalli 10 minutes
   <draft-ietf-dhc-soa-option-00.txt>
   <draft-syam-dhc-soav4-option-00.txt>
   Progress as dhc WG work item; combine into a single draft?

RE: Updated agenda

Ralph/Stig:

Could I get some time to discuss Relay Agent options (5-10 minutes). In
particular:
- draft-volz-dhc-dhcpv6-remoteid-00.txt
- draft-volz-dhc-dhcpv6-subid-00.txt
- discussion in
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dhcwg/current/msg04626.html
- and, are there other relay agent options we should consider

- Bernie

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dhcwg-bounces <at> ietf.org [mailto:dhcwg-bounces <at> ietf.org] 
> On Behalf Of Ralph Droms
> Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 10:48 AM
> To: dhcwg <at> ietf.org
> Cc: agenda <at> ietf.org; Stig Venaas
> Subject: [dhcwg] Updated agenda
> 
> 
> 
>                            DHC WG agenda - IETF 62
>                              0900 Thu 2005-03-10
>                     (Last revised 2005-03-03 10:44 AM ET)
>                     -------------------------------------
> 
> Administrivia                                      Ralph 
> Droms      10 minutes
>    Agenda bashing; blue sheets; scribe; Jabber scribe

WG document activities since last IETF; BoF of potential interest

Of interest to dhc WG:
----------------------
The IP Configuration Security BOF (icos) will take place thursday,
March 10, 2005 at 1300-1500. There will be a presentation about DHCP
authentication, including problem summary, RFC 3118 and
draft-ietf-dhc-v4-threat-analysis.

RFCs published:
---------------
RFC 3925
Vendor-Identifying Vendor Options for DHCPv4
J. Littlefield

RFC4014
RADIUS Attributes Suboption for the DHCP Relay Agent Information Option
R. Droms, J. Schnizlein

Accepted for publication:
-------------------------
draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-opt-sntp-01.txt
Simple Network Time Protocol Configuration Option for DHCPv6
V. Kalusivalingam

draft-ietf-dhc-isnsoption-13.txt
The IPv4 DHCP Option for the Internet Storage Name Service
C. Monia, J. Tseng, K. Gibbons

draft-ietf-dhc-rapid-commit-opt-05.txt
Rapid Commit Option for DHCPv4
S. Park, P. Kim, B. Volz

WG document activities since last IETF (updated)

Ted Lemon pointed out that I missed the docs "Sent to the IESG for 
review".  Here's the updated list of activities...

- Ralph

=====
RFCs published:
---------------
RFC 3925
Vendor-Identifying Vendor Options for DHCPv4
J. Littlefield

RFC4014
RADIUS Attributes Suboption for the DHCP Relay Agent Information Option
R. Droms, J. Schnizlein

Accepted for publication:
-------------------------
draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-opt-sntp-01.txt
Simple Network Time Protocol Configuration Option for DHCPv6
V. Kalusivalingam

draft-ietf-dhc-isnsoption-13.txt
The IPv4 DHCP Option for the Internet Storage Name Service
C. Monia, J. Tseng, K. Gibbons

draft-ietf-dhc-rapid-commit-opt-05.txt
Rapid Commit Option for DHCPv4
S. Park, P. Kim, B. Volz

WG+BOF chatrooms

(Reminder) Here's a link to instructions for the WG and BoF chatrooms during
IETF 62 - http://www.xmpp.org/ietf-chat.html

- Ralph

Updated agenda

                           DHC WG agenda - IETF 62
                             0900 Thu 2005-03-10
                    (Last revised 2005-03-04 05:12 AM ET)
                    -------------------------------------

Administrivia                                      Ralph Droms      10 minutes
   Agenda bashing; blue sheets; scribe; Jabber scribe
   Request for milestones for dhc WG drafts

SMTP Option for DHCPv6                             Christian Cadar  10 minutes
   <draft-cadar-dhc-dhcpv6-opt-smtp-00.txt>
   Accept as dhc WG work item?

Source Address Selection Policy option for DHCPv6  T. Fujisaki      10 minutes
   <draft-hirotaka-dhc-source-address-selection-opt-01.txt>
   Accept as dhc WG work item?

DHCPv6 Relay agent RADIUS Attribute Option         Wing Cheong Lau  10 minutes
   <draft-ietf-dhc-v6-relay-radius-00.txt>
   Accept as dhc WG work item?

DHCPv6 Options for Fast Handovers                  Takeshi Ogawa    10 minutes
   <draft-ogawa-fhopt-00.txt>
   Accept as dhc WG work item?

Service-Oriented Address Assignment using DHCP     Syam Madanapalli 10 minutes
   <draft-ietf-dhc-soa-option-00.txt>
   <draft-syam-dhc-soav4-option-00.txt>
   Progress as dhc WG work item; combine into a single draft?

RE: Commentsondraft-cadar-dhc-dhcpv6-opt-email-00.txt/draft-cadar-dhc-opt-imap-00.txt

In preparing for IETF-62 I dug up this old discussion and I second Ted's
question. I really don't see this as something coming from DHCP -- it really
is specific to the user, not the client, and isn't really access-point
specific (as most DHCP information is).

As we have DHCPv4 options (69 for SMTP and 70 for POP3), I would first ask
how widely used are these options? Are they supported by any clients? Are
they configured in any DHCPv4 servers?

If the answer is that they are heavily used, I'm all for adopting them for
DHCPv6. But if the answer is that they're basically never used, why do you
now feel they'll be used for DHCPv6?

Perhaps at the Thursday AM DHC WG session you can address this usage
question as that might gave the WG important information as to whether these
options are warranted for DHCPv6 or not.

Also, if we were to consider these options, how about a more general format
so we don't need a new option for every application that comes along?

For example, you could define a "default application server option" which
would be formatted as:
	well-known-service-port-number (2 bytes)
	length or number of addresses to follow (1 or 2 bytes)
	ipv6 addresses
And this could repeat. Now we have one option into which we can bundle up
all of the servers and when someone else comes along wanting to provide
clients the addresses for server foo, no new option need be written (and
implemented).