Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 09:49:12 -0500 From: Lowell Gilbert <freebsd-questions-local@be-well.ilk.org> To: CeDeROM <cederom@tlen.pl> Cc: FreeBSD Questions Mailing List <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: bug in dhclient / dhclient.conf / dhcp-options parser? Message-ID: <441u2cih07.fsf@lowell-desk.lan> In-Reply-To: <CAFYkXj=cDhH79C0b9B7Sq08ZbcQFAfHK%2B3t9xaqTMuHbF5wdTw@mail.gmail.com> (cederom@tlen.pl's message of "Tue, 19 Nov 2013 15:15:20 %2B0100") References: <CAFYkXjnrr5B=jNR_mtUCbcRcyCMqv96vTC=wxhEmdDU%2BVYPa_A@mail.gmail.com> <CAFYkXj=cDhH79C0b9B7Sq08ZbcQFAfHK%2B3t9xaqTMuHbF5wdTw@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
CeDeROM <cederom@tlen.pl> writes:
> On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 3:09 PM, CeDeROM <cederom@tlen.pl> wrote:
>> I have noticed that other options with names known to
>> dhcp-options and decimal numbers above 100 are sent correctly, so
>> maybe there is an error in the options number parser, or I do
>> something wrong?
>
> I have just tested value 88 (example below 100) and it works
> correctly, so parsing seems okay. Why some option numbers are treated
> in a different way then? :-(
See the manual ("man 5 dhcp-options").
Options which are not
listed by name may be defined by the name option-nnn, where nnn is the
decimal number of the option code.
You can only specify options by number if the dhcp client doesn't know
the syntax/semantics for that particular option.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?441u2cih07.fsf>