Here's what worked for my Mitel phones (note that I used option 43):

  "client-classes": [
  {
      "name": "mitel",
      "test": "substring(option[60].hex,0,17) == 'ipphone.mitel.com'",
      "option-def": [
          {
              "name": "vendor-encapsulated-options",
              "code": 43,
              "type": "string"
          }
      ],
      "option-data": [
      {
          "name": "vendor-encapsulated-options",
          "data": 
"id:ipphone.mitel.com;sw_tftp=10.151.75.34;call_srv=10.151.75.32"
      }
    ]
  },

From: Kea-users <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Evan Carson
Sent: Wednesday, November 6, 2019 4:00 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [Kea-users] Vendor-Identifying option 125 vivso-suboptions

Hello,

We are running Kea 1.4.0 and are having trouble getting the server to hand out 
option 125 to a Mitel phone. The Kea server is replying to the client with this 
data in the DHCP offer with an empty option 125 containing only the Mitel 
enterprise option but no data.

We have this option definition specified in the Dhcp4 config:
        "option-def": [
        {
                "array": false,
                "code": 130,
                "encapsulate": "",
                "name": "mitel-option",
                "record-types": "",
                "space": "vendor-1027",
                "type": "string"
            }
      ],

We then placed this option in the subnet["pools"]["option-data"] for our phone 
subnet
                            {
                                "name": "vivso-suboptions",
                                "data": "1027"
                            },
                            {
                                "name": "mitel-option",
                                "space": "vendor-1027",
                                "data": 
"id:ipphone.mitel.com<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fipphone.mitel.com&data=02%7C01%7CRobert.B.Sutherland%40windstream.com%7Cfe63ef71459047eeb95b08d762fc465b%7C2567b4c1b0ed40f5aee358d7c5f3e2b2%7C1%7C1%7C637086707970887653&sdata=ybRRfpPu13cnOyzXLUV2ojFqrTIFjusuUu%2BijhCjs1s%3D&reserved=0>;sw_tftp=10.78.182.2;call_srv=10.78.182.2;vlan=71;l2p=6;dscp=46;"
                            }

Here is the DHCP Offer pcap coming back from server:

Frame 15952: 332 bytes on wire (2656 bits), 332 bytes captured (2656 bits)
Ethernet II, Src: RealtekU_e9:ea:63 (52:54:00:e9:ea:63), Dst: SmcStand_9c:c6:36 
(08:00:0f:9c:c6:36)
Internet Protocol Version 4, Src: 192.168.1.1, Dst: 255.255.255.255
User Datagram Protocol, Src Port: 67, Dst Port: 68
Bootstrap Protocol (Offer)
    Message type: Boot Reply (2)
    Hardware type: Ethernet (0x01)
    Hardware address length: 6
    Hops: 0
    Transaction ID: 0x99cc086f
    Seconds elapsed: 0
    Bootp flags: 0x8000, Broadcast flag (Broadcast)
    Client IP address: 0.0.0.0
    Your (client) IP address: 192.168.1.102
    Next server IP address: 0.0.0.0
    Relay agent IP address: 0.0.0.0
    Client MAC address: SmcStand_9c:c6:36 (08:00:0f:9c:c6:36)
    Client hardware address padding: 00000000000000000000
    Server host name: KVM_128T_Remote
    Boot file name not given
    Magic cookie: DHCP
    Option: (1) Subnet Mask
    Option: (3) Router
    Option: (6) Domain Name Server
    Option: (51) IP Address Lease Time
    Option: (53) DHCP Message Type (Offer)
    Option: (54) DHCP Server Identifier
    Option: (61) Client identifier
    Option: (125) V-I Vendor-specific Information
        Length: 5
        Enterprise: Mitel, Corp. (1027)
            Length: 0
    Option: (255) End
It looks like the configuration for the enterprise ID is working correctly 
however the custom "mitel-option" string doesn't seem to be contributing. Is 
there anything wrong with the way we have this configured?

We aren't using any client-class configuration to restrict this option to only 
the clients requesting a given Vendor-Identifying Vendor Class option. Is it a 
requirement that the client-classification be used to specify the vendor class 
option?

Thank you for your help,

Evan Carson


Sensitivity: Internal
_______________________________________________
Kea-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/kea-users

Reply via email to