Jason Salmans writes: > Yes, I have several client-classes defined (let's say Class A, Class B, Cla= > ss C, etc.) and I'm going to have multiple subnets defined (Subnet 1, Subne= > t 2, etc). The vast majority of my clients probably won't be classified at= > all so let's say they'll get Subnet 2. Subnet 1 is the special and I'd li= > ke Classes A, B, and C to all get IP addresses from Subnet 1. I figure I c= > ould condense all of them down to one client class and have a really large = > test statement with a number of "or" operators but it seemed kind of messy = > to do it that way and breaking them out into different classes allows more = > options in the future if I need to assign special values of any kind.
=> yes, you either need a big "or" or to wait for the shared network feature (we are discuting about it but it is in still in requirement/ early design phase so won't be available soon). > I was assuming it would be something like "test": "option[55].hex = > '1,3,7,43'" => equal is == (vs =) and the hexadecimal value of the option matches better a hexadecimal litteral so it is more "option[55].hex == 0x0103072B". > This loads correctly on service start but I don't think I've gotten it to > successfully match to a client yet. => you can debug the classification evaluation. Regards Francis Dupont <[email protected]> _______________________________________________ Kea-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/kea-users
