That would be in fact a very nice idea :)
<https://about.me/rpcaldeira?promo=email_sig&utm_source=email_sig&utm_medium=email_sig&utm_campaign=external_links> [https://aboutme.imgix.net/background/users/r/p/c/rpcaldeira_outlook.com_1455023098_86.jpg?w=105&q=90&dpr=1&auto=format,redeye&rect=0,14,756,504] Rui Pedro Caldeira about.me/rpcaldeira On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 9:54 PM, Tomek Mrugalski <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: W dniu 01.02.2017 o 22:15, Rui Pedro Caldeira pisze: > Hi Tomek, once again thanks for the quick reply. Sadly no, the > identifier must be both the circuit-id and remote-id. Like I said > before, circuit-ids can be equal when sent from different relays > (remote-ids), I the pair <remote-id, circuit-id> to identify the device. I see. Ok, so your requirement is different than what we heard from other users. This makes it more complicated. To implement it, we would need to have either some capability to store multiple identifiers for the same reservation, which would require some DB schema updates. Some time ago I had an idea for a flexible identifier. The user would define what the identifier is in similar what to how client classification is done now. For example, you could say "custom-identifier": "remote-id+circuit-id" and then specify whatever value you want to reserve that that identifier. This would be super flexible and would cover almost any uncommon reservation need. It would also be more complex implementation than adding a reservation based on a value of a single option. Tomek
_______________________________________________ Kea-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/kea-users
