Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[dhcpv4/dhcpv6] Adding Selector function for dropping packets that do not meet user-defined conditions. #434

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

63818569
Copy link

@63818569 63818569 commented Aug 8, 2021

user-defined conditions means selecting packets using VendorOpts structure

… not meet user-defined conditions.

Signed-off-by: 63818569 <63818569@qq.com>
… not meet user-defined conditions.

Signed-off-by: 63818569 <63818569@qq.com>
@pmazzini
Copy link
Collaborator

pmazzini commented Aug 9, 2021

Can you describe a bit more the use case for this?

Do packets need to be filtered at this level or can a user filter them afterwards instead?

@63818569
Copy link
Author

Can you describe a bit more the use case for this?

Do packets need to be filtered at this level or can a user filter them afterwards instead?

image
RFC2132 described below:

8.4. Vendor Specific Information

This option is used by clients and servers to exchange vendor-
specific information. The information is an opaque object of n
octets, presumably interpreted by vendor-specific code on the clients
and servers. The definition of this information is vendor specific.
The vendor is indicated in the vendor class identifier option.
Servers not equipped to interpret the vendor-specific information
sent by a client MUST ignore it (although it may be reported).
Clients which do not receive desired vendor-specific information
SHOULD make an attempt to operate without it, although they may do so
(and announce they are doing so) in a degraded mode.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants