Assigned
Status Update
No update yet.
Comments
ch...@google.com
TL;DR: GCE should document that the DHCP client software should support the "Local Subnet Routes" feature specified in RFC 3442. (Ironically though, ISC DHCP does *not* support RFC 3442 at all, but works anyway because of a different non-standard extension; see below for details.)
Today I spent some time looking into this again, because I noticed at some point in the past year OpenBSD's DHCP client stopped working with GCE's DHCP server.
Just for posterity, here's a current DHCP client/server exchange:
16:25:26.187577 IP (tos 0x10, ttl 128, id 0, offset 0, flags [none], proto UDP (17), length 328)
10.240.120.1.68 > 255.255.255.255.67: [udp sum ok] BOOTP/DHCP, Request from 42:01:0a:f0:78:01, length 300, xid 0xdf529822, Flags [none] (0x0000)
Client-Ethernet-Address 42:01:0a:f0:78:01
Vendor-rfc1048 Extensions
Magic Cookie 0x63825363
DHCP-Message Option 53, length 1: Request
Hostname Option 12, length 8: "xxxxxxxx"
Requested-IP Option 50, length 4: 10.240.120.1
Parameter-Request Option 55, length 8:
Subnet-Mask, BR, Time-Zone, Classless-Static-Route
Default-Gateway, Domain-Name, Domain-Name-Server, Hostname
Client-ID Option 61, length 7: ether 42:01:0a:f0:78:01
16:25:26.188125 IP (tos 0x0, ttl 1, id 0, offset 0, flags [none], proto UDP (17), length 471)
169.254.169.254.67 > 10.240.120.1.68: [udp sum ok] BOOTP/DHCP, Reply, length 443, xid 0xdf529822, Flags [none] (0x0000)
Your-IP 10.240.120.1
Server-IP 10.240.0.1
Gateway-IP 10.240.0.1
Client-Ethernet-Address 42:01:0a:f0:78:01
Vendor-rfc1048 Extensions
Magic Cookie 0x63825363
DHCP-Message Option 53, length 1: ACK
Server-ID Option 54, length 4: 169.254.169.254
Domain-Name-Server Option 6, length 8: 169.254.169.254,10.240.0.1
Lease-Time Option 51, length 4: 4294967295
Domain-Name Option 15, length 30: "c.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.internal."
T119 Option 119, length 63: 1.99.18.X.X.X.X.X.X.X.X.X.X.X.X.X.X.X.X.X.X.8.105.110.116.101.114.110.97.108.0.12.51.55.52.49.50.49.55.50.48.50.52.49.6.103.111.111.103.108.101.8.105.110.116.101.114.110.97.108.0.192.44
Subnet-Mask Option 1, length 4: 255.255.255.255
Default-Gateway Option 3, length 4: 10.240.0.1
Classless-Static-Route Option 121, length 14: (10.240.0.1/32:0.0.0.0 ),(default:10.240.0.1)
MTU Option 26, length 2: 1460
Hostname Option 12, length 40: "xxxxxxxxxx.c.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.internal"
NTP Option 42, length 4: 169.254.169.254
The particularly relevant details:
- RFC 3442 specifies that a Classless-Static-Route entry like "10.240.0.1/32:0.0.0.0 " indicates 10.240.0.1/32 is a "local subnet route" that's directly routable even though it's not part of the leased IP address's subnet (i.e., 10.240.120.1/32 for the above exchange).
- For DHCP clients that don't support RFC 3442, if Subnet-Mask == 255.255.255.255, then the DHCP client needs to assume the Default-Gateway is directly routable. (This isn't specified by any RFCs as far as I can tell though.)
The regression was because:
- ISC DHCP doesn't implement Classless-Static-Route support (as far as I can tell), but it does implement the Subnet-Mask == 255.255.255.255 hack for Default-Gateway.
- When I first modified OpenBSD dhclient to work with GCE, dhclient wasn't seeing any Classless-Static-Route options in the server response. Since ISC DHCP's behavior was undocumented, I simply matched the implementation exactly by only extending the Default-Gateway processing.
- Some point within the last year, OpenBSD dhclient started seeing Classless-Static-Route options from the server*. OpenBSD's Classless-Static-Route support didn't implement the "local route" behavior (instead it skipped over those routes as permitted by the RFC), and the presence of the Classless-Static-Route option precludes handling of the Default-Gateway option.
* It's unclear to me why. It looks like OpenBSD dhclient has supported Classless-Static-Route for more than a year, so I suspect GCE's DHCP server must have changed since then to start using this option.
Finally, the fix was to implement "local subnet route" support in OpenBSD dhclient:http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-tech&m=141212568615772&w=2
Today I spent some time looking into this again, because I noticed at some point in the past year OpenBSD's DHCP client stopped working with GCE's DHCP server.
Just for posterity, here's a current DHCP client/server exchange:
16:25:26.187577 IP (tos 0x10, ttl 128, id 0, offset 0, flags [none], proto UDP (17), length 328)
10.240.120.1.68 > 255.255.255.255.67: [udp sum ok] BOOTP/DHCP, Request from 42:01:0a:f0:78:01, length 300, xid 0xdf529822, Flags [none] (0x0000)
Client-Ethernet-Address 42:01:0a:f0:78:01
Vendor-rfc1048 Extensions
Magic Cookie 0x63825363
DHCP-Message Option 53, length 1: Request
Hostname Option 12, length 8: "xxxxxxxx"
Requested-IP Option 50, length 4: 10.240.120.1
Parameter-Request Option 55, length 8:
Subnet-Mask, BR, Time-Zone, Classless-Static-Route
Default-Gateway, Domain-Name, Domain-Name-Server, Hostname
Client-ID Option 61, length 7: ether 42:01:0a:f0:78:01
16:25:26.188125 IP (tos 0x0, ttl 1, id 0, offset 0, flags [none], proto UDP (17), length 471)
169.254.169.254.67 > 10.240.120.1.68: [udp sum ok] BOOTP/DHCP, Reply, length 443, xid 0xdf529822, Flags [none] (0x0000)
Your-IP 10.240.120.1
Server-IP 10.240.0.1
Gateway-IP 10.240.0.1
Client-Ethernet-Address 42:01:0a:f0:78:01
Vendor-rfc1048 Extensions
Magic Cookie 0x63825363
DHCP-Message Option 53, length 1: ACK
Server-ID Option 54, length 4: 169.254.169.254
Domain-Name-Server Option 6, length 8: 169.254.169.254,10.240.0.1
Lease-Time Option 51, length 4: 4294967295
Domain-Name Option 15, length 30: "c.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.internal."
T119 Option 119, length 63: 1.99.18.X.X.X.X.X.X.X.X.X.X.X.X.X.X.X.X.X.X.8.105.110.116.101.114.110.97.108.0.12.51.55.52.49.50.49.55.50.48.50.52.49.6.103.111.111.103.108.101.8.105.110.116.101.114.110.97.108.0.192.44
Subnet-Mask Option 1, length 4: 255.255.255.255
Default-Gateway Option 3, length 4: 10.240.0.1
Classless-Static-Route Option 121, length 14: (
MTU Option 26, length 2: 1460
Hostname Option 12, length 40: "xxxxxxxxxx.c.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.internal"
NTP Option 42, length 4: 169.254.169.254
The particularly relevant details:
- RFC 3442 specifies that a Classless-Static-Route entry like "
- For DHCP clients that don't support RFC 3442, if Subnet-Mask == 255.255.255.255, then the DHCP client needs to assume the Default-Gateway is directly routable. (This isn't specified by any RFCs as far as I can tell though.)
The regression was because:
- ISC DHCP doesn't implement Classless-Static-Route support (as far as I can tell), but it does implement the Subnet-Mask == 255.255.255.255 hack for Default-Gateway.
- When I first modified OpenBSD dhclient to work with GCE, dhclient wasn't seeing any Classless-Static-Route options in the server response. Since ISC DHCP's behavior was undocumented, I simply matched the implementation exactly by only extending the Default-Gateway processing.
- Some point within the last year, OpenBSD dhclient started seeing Classless-Static-Route options from the server*. OpenBSD's Classless-Static-Route support didn't implement the "local route" behavior (instead it skipped over those routes as permitted by the RFC), and the presence of the Classless-Static-Route option precludes handling of the Default-Gateway option.
* It's unclear to me why. It looks like OpenBSD dhclient has supported Classless-Static-Route for more than a year, so I suspect GCE's DHCP server must have changed since then to start using this option.
Finally, the fix was to implement "local subnet route" support in OpenBSD dhclient:
ch...@google.com
Hello,
Once we get an update from the product team; we will inform you. Thank you!
ch...@google.com
ja...@hm.com
Any updates about this feature or relevant improvements with VM manager? We would like to bring the overall governance with central policy that could apply to multiple projects within the organization.
ba...@google.com
ba...@google.com
Hello,
According to the
To ensure a faster resolution and dedicated support for your issue, I kindly request you to file a support ticket by clicking
Please note that the Issue Tracker is primarily meant for reporting bugs and requesting new features. For individual support issues, it is best to utilize the support ticketing system. If you have any additional issues or concerns, please don’t hesitate to create a new thread on the
Thanks & Regards,
Manish Bavireddy.
Google Cloud Support
Description
As a Central Team, we would like to Patch OS to multiple projects in a Google Cloud organization from the google cloud console, so that multiple team can take advantage of the feature. COmpliance, Emergency patching.
How this might work:
VM Manager should support OS patching to multiple projects VMs from the Console with also show the compliance.
If applicable, reasons why alternative solutions are not sufficient:
Currently, A workaround is mentioned in