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. End of maintenance for ISC DHC CLIENT and RELAY (Victoria Risk)
2. Re: Option 82 Sub-option 5 (Simon Hobson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2021 12:13:34 -0700
From: Victoria Risk <vi...@isc.org>
To: Users of ISC DHCP <dhcp-users@lists.isc.org>
Subject: End of maintenance for ISC DHC CLIENT and RELAY
Message-ID: <049096f6-68e2-4e12-bc99-5acb59c7f...@isc.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Greetings ISC DHCP Users -
ISC would like to end maintenance of the ISC DHCP *client and relay* by the end
of 2021. We plan to continue maintaining the DHCP *server*, and any code that
is common between the server, client and relay for a couple more years at
least. Our January 2020 release of ISC DHCP incorporated a number of submitted
patches, mostly for the client, but otherwise we have done little maintenance
on the client or relay. To be honest, the client and relay have simply not
been a focus of ours for several years. As a small non-profit organization, we
have to allocate our limited resources carefully and we think the ISC DHCP
server, and Kea have more future value for users.
We emailed a couple of dozen people who contributed to the maintenance of the
ISC DHCP client and relay in the past few years to see if there was anyone
interested in volunteering to take over maintenance. We got a single reply,
from someone who is maintainer for the client in an operating system. This
reinforced our thinking that perhaps no one needs the ISC distribution of the
client or relay any longer.
Why are we doing this?
The ISC DHCP code is extremely mature, and is not designed for
unit-testability. The test coverage is just not good enough to inspire
confidence that any change, even an apparently minor one, would not cause some
unidentified breakage.
ISC has no support customers for either of these components, and we haven?t for
at least a decade, so there is no funding stream to support them. We are not
even sure whether anyone is even using the client or relay code from our
distribution anymore. We think it is likely that some operating systems are
maintaining DHC client or relay implementations or forks that are ?better
maintained? and more modern than our current client or relay code.
Feedback welcome
We welcome your comments, questions and suggestions. We have maintained ISC
DHCP for over 20 years, and it seems like it is time to archive the ISC DHC
client and relay. If you are aware of a well-maintained implementation of
either a client or relay, and would like to suggest users switch to that
alternative, please feel free to reply with that comment.
We would like to thank all the contributors who have sent us patches (mostly
upstreaming client patches from operating system distributions) over the years.
Questions?
Vicky Risk
Product Manager
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://lists.isc.org/pipermail/dhcp-users/attachments/20210617/39393e09/attachment-0001.htm>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2021 11:37:29 +0100
From: Simon Hobson <dh...@thehobsons.co.uk>
To: Users of ISC DHCP <dhcp-users@lists.isc.org>
Subject: Re: Option 82 Sub-option 5
Message-ID: <985ac30b-be07-45c4-8f6b-036bf8b3c...@thehobsons.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Kraishak Mahtha <kraishak....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> I have been trying to understand the option 82 sub option 5
> (agent.link-selection) working prototype, I have been searching in the forums
> and many of them suggest as below
>
> class "BD-1Net" { match if(binary-to-ascii(10, 8, ".", option
> agent.link-selection) = "192.168.1.0"); }
>
> shared-network BD-1Net
> {
> subnet 192.168.1.0 netmask 255.255.255.0
> {
> option routers 192.168.1.1;
> option subnet-mask 255.255.255.0;
> pool {
> allow members of "BD-1Net";
> range 192.168.1.101 192.168.1.110;
> }
> }
> }
> I have a doubt of why to add a shared-network line statement in the config
> though it has only one subnet, Is it mandatory to add that shared-network
> statement?
> I tried testing without adding the shared-network statement line and it works
> fine, but before I use in my prod I want to know full details,
Yes, if there is only one subnet then the shared-network is optional. AFAIK in
this situation it will provide no additional features.
BTW - it's not necessary to use binary-to-ascii, you can (I think) compare the
raw data :
match if( option agent.link-selection = 0xc0a80100 );
which is less processing though less readable.
Simon
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
ISC funds the development of this software with paid support subscriptions.
Contact us at https://www.isc.org/contact/ for more information.
dhcp-users mailing list
dhcp-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcp-users
------------------------------
End of dhcp-users Digest, Vol 152, Issue 7
******************************************
