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: DHCPv6 Option 56 configuration (mxhajducze...@gmail.com)
2. Re: DHCPv6 Option 56 configuration (Miloslav H?la)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2024 16:27:26 -0700
From: <mxhajducze...@gmail.com>
To: "'Users of ISC DHCP'" <dhcp-users@lists.isc.org>
Subject: RE: DHCPv6 Option 56 configuration
Message-ID: <033501da4a65$e59b8d60$b0d2a820$@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Just to build some more in here ?
I tried to create a fake option 56 using the following config
option dhcp6.ntp-servers code 56 = text;
option dhcp6.ntp-servers "This is a test";
and it does causes Option 56 to show up, but obviously, it is malformed, as
expected.
Then I go with a proper definition of Option 56 as an encapsulation option as
shown below
option space ntp56 code width 2 length width 2 hash size 2;
option ntp56.address code 1 = array of ip6-address;
option ntp56.fqdn code 3 = text;
option opt56 code 56 = encapsulate ntp56;
option ntp56.address ::1;
vendor-option-space ntp56;
This one does not generate any Option 56 structure, invalid or otherwise. It is
strange to me, since I know the syntax is correct and follows ISC
documentation, but for some reason the Option 56 is not being generated here.
Why, I am clueless. Any hints would be really appreciated.
M
From: Marek Hajduczenia <mxhajducze...@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2024 3:20 PM
To: Users of ISC DHCP <dhcp-users@lists.isc.org>
Subject: Re: DHCPv6 Option 56 configuration
Thank you, Milo, but the DHCPv6 clients explicitly request option 56 and
happily ignore the vale passed in the sntp option. I dug through all documents
I can find online, including this mailing list, and found nothing showing how
this Option could be implemented. Why is it defined at all if it is not being
used?
M
From: dhcp-users <dhcp-users-boun...@lists.isc.org
<mailto:dhcp-users-boun...@lists.isc.org> > on behalf of Miloslav H?la
<miloslav.h...@gmail.com <mailto:miloslav.h...@gmail.com> >
Date: Thursday, January 18, 2024 at 3:14?PM
To: dhcp-users@lists.isc.org <mailto:dhcp-users@lists.isc.org>
<dhcp-users@lists.isc.org <mailto:dhcp-users@lists.isc.org> >
Subject: Re: DHCPv6 Option 56 configuration
Dne 18.01.2024 v 19:54 Marek Hajduczenia napsal(a):
> Dear mailing list users,
> I have been trying to define NTPv6 option to use with ISC-DHCPD6 daemon
> (4.4.1 running on Ubuntu 22.04 server) as follows
Hi,
I think there is an integrated option:
option dhcp6.sntp-servers fc00:6ce4:40:146::1;
Milo
--
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 <mailto: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/20240118/00cd16ef/attachment-0001.htm>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2024 08:24:42 +0100
From: Miloslav H?la <miloslav.h...@gmail.com>
To: dhcp-users@lists.isc.org
Subject: Re: DHCPv6 Option 56 configuration
Message-ID: <c4c87fea-926c-4aab-874c-a4b534aa0...@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Dne 19.01.2024 v 0:27 mxhajducze...@gmail.com napsal(a):
> Just to build some more in here ?
>
> I tried to create a fake option 56 using the following config
>
> /option dhcp6.ntp-servers code 56 = text;/
> /option dhcp6.ntp-servers "This is a test";/
>
> and it does causes Option 56 to show up, but obviously, it is malformed,
> as expected.
>
> Then I go with a proper definition of Option 56 as an encapsulation
> option as shown below
>
> /option space ntp56 code width 2 length width 2 hash size 2;/
> /option ntp56.address code 1 = array of ip6-address;/
> /option ntp56.fqdn code 3 = text;/
> /option opt56 code 56 = encapsulate ntp56;/
> /option ntp56.address ::1;/
> /vendor-option-space ntp56;/
Oh, I'm sorry. The sntp-servers is option 31.
I think vendor-option-space is not necessary. It is for custom vendor
options e.g. if one vendor use option code 10 and other vendor use the
option code 10 too but with different meaning. I would try:
option space ntp56 code width 2 length width 2 hash size 2;
option ntp56.address code 1 = array of ip6-address;
option ntp56.fqdn code 3 = text;
option dhcp6.ntp-servers code 56 = encapsulate ntp56;
ntp56.address = fc00:6ce4:40:146::1;
ntp56.fqdn = "ntp.example.com";
Would like to test, but none of our of thousands clients does not
require this option.
Milo
------------------------------
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 182, Issue 3
******************************************
