Hi Marek,
The "client-class" is meant to only contain one class and no logical
operands. I am not sure if that configuration should throw an error,
however. There may be other considerations (such as API use to add
classes later) that prevent such checking of the name contained
therein.
Thank you,
Darren Ankney
On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 8:45 PM <mxhajducze...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Just a foreword, I am experimenting with the class definitions and different
> test structures, since the examples provided in the official documentation
> are very limited. Specifically, I created these match conditions, and they
> seem to work just fine
>
>
>
> "client-classes": [
>
> {
>
> "name": "CTS19-RPDs",
>
> "test": "pkt4.mac == 0x0020a361415b or pkt4.mac == 0x001848fe8f35"
>
> },
>
> {
>
> "name": "CTS17-RPDs",
>
> "test": "(pkt4.mac == 0x0020a3283bfb) or (pkt4.mac ==
> 0x0020a3263a4b) or (pkt4.mac == 0x0020a3263a6b) or (pkt4.mac ==
> 0x0020a35a1b0b)"
>
> },
>
> {
>
> "name": "CTS18-RPDs",
>
> "test": "(pkt4.mac == 0x0020a325c53b) or (pkt4.mac ==
> 0x0018480ae57d) or (pkt4.mac == 0x0020a32b08bb) or (pkt4.mac ==
> 0x0020a328e02b) or (pkt4.mac == 0x0020a357fc6b) or (pkt4.mac ==
> 0x0020a358a5bb) or (pkt4.mac == 0x0020a35eb56b) or (pkt4.mac ==
> 0x0020a35ecadb) or (pkt4.mac == 0x0018480ae35f) or (pkt4.mac ==
> 0x0018480ae903) or (pkt4.mac == 0x0020a35dfb3b) or (pkt4.mac ==
> 0x0020a380378b) or (pkt4.mac == 0x0020a34f93cb)"
>
> }
>
> ],
>
>
>
> As you can see, the test structure seems to not care for brackets () or not,
> and does the matching well even with very long conditions.
>
>
>
> Where the question comes is with the “client-class” statement in individual
> pool / subnet definitions. In the following example, the client class
> statement contains an ‘or’ combination for three different classes defined
> before. It parses fine, but … it does not seem to work. All examples I can
> find show a single entry in the client-class, but I am wondering whether the
> example below is a mistake and the parser should throw an error or not. I do
> know I can create another class that combines three previous classes into
> one, but I find this cleaner to read, where the match in client-class is
> performed on and/or combined structure of different atomic classes.
>
>
>
> {
>
> "id": 1,
>
> "subnet": "172.27.60.16/28",
>
> "relay": {
>
> "ip-addresses": [ "172.27.60.17" ]
>
> },
>
> "pools": [
>
> {
>
> "pool": "172.27.60.18 - 172.27.60.30",
>
> "client-class": "CTS19-RPDs or CTS18-RPDs or
> CTS17-RPDs"
>
> }
>
> ],
>
> "option-data": [
>
> {
>
> "space": "dhcp4",
>
> "name": "subnet-mask",
>
> "code": 1,
>
> "data": "255.255.255.240"
>
> },
>
> {
>
> "space": "dhcp4",
>
> "name": "routers",
>
> "code": 3,
>
> "data": "172.27.60.17"
>
> },
>
> {
>
> "space": "dhcp4",
>
> "name": "vendor-encapsulated-options",
>
> "code": 43,
>
> "csv-format": false,
>
> "data": "3d04ac1b3d04"
>
> }
>
> ]
>
> },
>
>
>
> Is the above shown “client-class” match condition a valid example and should
> it work?
>
>
>
> Regards
>
>
>
> Marek
>
> --
> ISC funds the development of this software with paid support subscriptions.
> Contact us at https://www.isc.org/contact/ for more information.
>
> To unsubscribe visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/kea-users.
>
> Kea-users mailing list
> Kea-users@lists.isc.org
> https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/kea-users
--
ISC funds the development of this software with paid support subscriptions.
Contact us at https://www.isc.org/contact/ for more information.
To unsubscribe visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/kea-users.
Kea-users mailing list
Kea-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/kea-users
