Send dhcp-users mailing list submissions to
dhcp-users@lists.isc.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcp-users
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
dhcp-users-requ...@lists.isc.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
dhcp-users-ow...@lists.isc.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of dhcp-users digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. RE: Option negation (Patrick Trapp)
2. Re: Option negation (John Hascall)
3. Re: dhcpd (via systemd) @boottime which does not wait for the
interface.. (lejeczek)
4. Re: Option negation (John Hascall)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 4 May 2016 12:10:08 +0000
From: Patrick Trapp <ptr...@nex-tech.com>
To: Users of ISC DHCP <dhcp-users@lists.isc.org>
Subject: RE: Option negation
Message-ID:
<1d507d610594d14f86d40d77c17e9e662a9d0...@exchangedsb.ruralnex.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
I had not realized that a host entry would inherit from more general
configuration entries. It's not something I've really looked at despite many
active host entries on my system.
Can you reverse the order so that the configuration without an option is what
the larger group qualifies for first and your devices requiring the specific
option are the ones that are the special cases.
Alternatively, can you disqualify the devices requiring no option so they do
not receive the configuration with the unwanted option at all? Same idea,
potentially very different execution.
Patrick
________________________________________
From: dhcp-users-boun...@lists.isc.org [dhcp-users-boun...@lists.isc.org] on
behalf of Glenn Satchell [glenn.satch...@uniq.com.au]
Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2016 1:20 AM
To: Users of ISC DHCP
Subject: Re: Option negation
This topic comes up from time to time. Unfortunately there is no way to
remove an option. The best you can currently do is set it to a null or
empty string, but this is not the same as not sending the option.
regards,
-glenn
On Wed, May 4, 2016 6:11 am, John Hascall wrote:
> I know that options set in more specific scopes override those set in less
> specific scopes, but can I "undo" an option setting? That is, lets
> imagine
> I have this:
>
> option option-66 code 66 = text;
>
>
> and then in a class scope, I have:
>
> class "someclass" {
> ??????
> ??? ???
> match substring(hardware, 1, 3);
> ??? ???
>
> *option option-66 "blah blah blah";*}
> subclass "
> ???someclass
> " 00:0
> ???1???
> :
> ???02???
> ;
>
>
> I know that, given that host whatever falls in that class scope, that:
>
> host whatever {
>
> ??? hardware ethernet 00:01:02:03:04:05;???
>
> ???
> *option option-66 "fe fi fo fum";*
> }
>
>
> works
> ??? to change its option???
> , but what if
> ???I ???
> want *host whatever* not to get
> ??? that option at all? How do I do that???
>
> host whatever {
> ??? ???
> hardware ethernet 00:01:02:03:04:05;???
>
> *no option??? option-66; <== just making this up*
> }
>
>
> ???Many Thanks!
> John???
> _______________________________________________
> dhcp-users mailing list
> dhcp-users@lists.isc.org
> https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcp-users
_______________________________________________
dhcp-users mailing list
dhcp-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcp-users
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Wed, 4 May 2016 07:12:34 -0500
From: John Hascall <j...@iastate.edu>
To: Users of ISC DHCP <dhcp-users@lists.isc.org>
Subject: Re: Option negation
Message-ID:
<cadcx5mow9wk95r6prcvkiql+zz6k1yljyvro5rtxgbf55uq...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Thanks for your reply.
John
PS, ISC, that's bogus.
On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 1:20 AM, Glenn Satchell <glenn.satch...@uniq.com.au>
wrote:
> This topic comes up from time to time. Unfortunately there is no way to
> remove an option. The best you can currently do is set it to a null or
> empty string, but this is not the same as not sending the option.
>
> regards,
> -glenn
>
> On Wed, May 4, 2016 6:11 am, John Hascall wrote:
> > I know that options set in more specific scopes override those set in
> less
> > specific scopes, but can I "undo" an option setting? That is, lets
> > imagine
> > I have this:
> >
> > option option-66 code 66 = text;
> >
> >
> > and then in a class scope, I have:
> >
> > class "someclass" {
> > ??????
> > ??? ???
> > match substring(hardware, 1, 3);
> > ??? ???
> >
> > *option option-66 "blah blah blah";*}
> > subclass "
> > ???someclass
> > " 00:0
> > ???1???
> > :
> > ???02???
> > ;
> >
> >
> > I know that, given that host whatever falls in that class scope, that:
> >
> > host whatever {
> >
> > ??? hardware ethernet 00:01:02:03:04:05;???
> >
> > ???
> > *option option-66 "fe fi fo fum";*
> > }
> >
> >
> > works
> > ??? to change its option???
> > , but what if
> > ???I ???
> > want *host whatever* not to get
> > ??? that option at all? How do I do that???
> >
> > host whatever {
> > ??? ???
> > hardware ethernet 00:01:02:03:04:05;???
> >
> > *no option??? option-66; <== just making this up*
> > }
> >
> >
> > ???Many Thanks!
> > John???
> > _______________________________________________
> > dhcp-users mailing list
> > dhcp-users@lists.isc.org
> > https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcp-users
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dhcp-users mailing list
> dhcp-users@lists.isc.org
> https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcp-users
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://lists.isc.org/pipermail/dhcp-users/attachments/20160504/730843a7/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Wed, 04 May 2016 13:13:45 +0100
From: lejeczek <pelj...@yahoo.co.uk>
To: Users of ISC DHCP <dhcp-users@lists.isc.org>
Subject: Re: dhcpd (via systemd) @boottime which does not wait for the
interface..
Message-ID: <1462364025.6964.165.ca...@yahoo.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
"complain" is wrongly chosen word in my view.
I'd have been still writing bash-whole-long scripts only to put &
start/manage things together - I did not mind it, but with systemd I
can go and script something else. I think systemd is one of few best
things recently happened to Linux, earlier it was all jungle,
everybody's own jungle.
I've gone to systemd list, lets see.
On Wed, 2016-05-04 at 12:52 +0100, Simon Hobson wrote:
> lejeczek <pelj...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Would you share your thoughts?
>
> Complain to the SystemD camp that they've broken it. Sorry, but I'm
> in the camp that says SystemD isn't going near any of my systems - I
> like systems that work reliably and can be fixed in the event that
> something goes wrong and SystemD is the exact opposite of this.
> Lennart Poettering's team broke it (along with loads of other stuff),
> they should fix it.
>
> _______________________________________________
> dhcp-users mailing list
> dhcp-users@lists.isc.org
> https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcp-users
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://lists.isc.org/pipermail/dhcp-users/attachments/20160504/4fd1448b/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Wed, 4 May 2016 07:20:02 -0500
From: John Hascall <j...@iastate.edu>
To: Users of ISC DHCP <dhcp-users@lists.isc.org>
Subject: Re: Option negation
Message-ID:
<CADCx5MoqsNVx5qQ+=0iyr_8cD6_f6aueHKhM=xxidwadnot...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Unfortunately, I can't think of any way to do that.
We have many thousands of IP phones. I don't even have a list of them,
all I have is the MAC prefix that I use to assign them to a group.
The group sets their options, now I have a request that this one specific
phone not get the options.
Thanks though!
John
On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 7:10 AM, Patrick Trapp <ptr...@nex-tech.com> wrote:
> I had not realized that a host entry would inherit from more general
> configuration entries. It's not something I've really looked at despite
> many active host entries on my system.
>
> Can you reverse the order so that the configuration without an option is
> what the larger group qualifies for first and your devices requiring the
> specific option are the ones that are the special cases.
>
> Alternatively, can you disqualify the devices requiring no option so they
> do not receive the configuration with the unwanted option at all? Same
> idea, potentially very different execution.
>
> Patrick
>
> ________________________________________
> From: dhcp-users-boun...@lists.isc.org [dhcp-users-boun...@lists.isc.org]
> on behalf of Glenn Satchell [glenn.satch...@uniq.com.au]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2016 1:20 AM
> To: Users of ISC DHCP
> Subject: Re: Option negation
>
> This topic comes up from time to time. Unfortunately there is no way to
> remove an option. The best you can currently do is set it to a null or
> empty string, but this is not the same as not sending the option.
>
> regards,
> -glenn
>
> On Wed, May 4, 2016 6:11 am, John Hascall wrote:
> > I know that options set in more specific scopes override those set in
> less
> > specific scopes, but can I "undo" an option setting? That is, lets
> > imagine
> > I have this:
> >
> > option option-66 code 66 = text;
> >
> >
> > and then in a class scope, I have:
> >
> > class "someclass" {
> > ??????
> > ??? ???
> > match substring(hardware, 1, 3);
> > ??? ???
> >
> > *option option-66 "blah blah blah";*}
> > subclass "
> > ???someclass
> > " 00:0
> > ???1???
> > :
> > ???02???
> > ;
> >
> >
> > I know that, given that host whatever falls in that class scope, that:
> >
> > host whatever {
> >
> > ??? hardware ethernet 00:01:02:03:04:05;???
> >
> > ???
> > *option option-66 "fe fi fo fum";*
> > }
> >
> >
> > works
> > ??? to change its option???
> > , but what if
> > ???I ???
> > want *host whatever* not to get
> > ??? that option at all? How do I do that???
> >
> > host whatever {
> > ??? ???
> > hardware ethernet 00:01:02:03:04:05;???
> >
> > *no option??? option-66; <== just making this up*
> > }
> >
> >
> > ???Many Thanks!
> > John???
> > _______________________________________________
> > dhcp-users mailing list
> > dhcp-users@lists.isc.org
> > https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcp-users
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dhcp-users mailing list
> dhcp-users@lists.isc.org
> https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcp-users
> _______________________________________________
> dhcp-users mailing list
> dhcp-users@lists.isc.org
> https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcp-users
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://lists.isc.org/pipermail/dhcp-users/attachments/20160504/7d072f5c/attachment.html>
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
dhcp-users mailing list
dhcp-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcp-users
End of dhcp-users Digest, Vol 91, Issue 7
*****************************************
