Hi,
I Agree with you, patch sent.
Regards,
Francois-Xavier Le Bail
--- Graham Bloice <graham.bloice@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Jaap Keuter wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Checked in.
> >
> > Thanx,
> > Jaap
> >
> > Francois-Xavier Le Bail wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> The following patch decode DHCP option 121.
> >> (RFC 3442)
> >>
> >> Output example :
> >>
> >> Option: (t=121,l=59) Classless Static Route
> >> Option: (121) Classless Static Route
> >> Length: 59
> >> Value:
> >>
> 00C0A80301080AC0A80302090B80C0A8030310AC10C0A803...
> >> Subnet/MaskWidth-Router: default-192.168.3.1
> >> Subnet/MaskWidth-Router: 10.0.0.0/8-192.168.3.2
> >> Subnet/MaskWidth-Router:
> 11.128.0.0/9-192.168.3.3
> >> Subnet/MaskWidth-Router:
> 172.16.0.0/16-192.168.3.4
> >> Subnet/MaskWidth-Router:
> 172.17.128.0/17-192.168.3.5
> >> Subnet/MaskWidth-Router:
> 192.168.1.0/24-192.168.3.6
> >> Subnet/MaskWidth-Router:
> 192.168.2.128/25-192.168.3.7
> >> Subnet/MaskWidth-Router:
> >> 192.168.254.254/32-192.168.3.8
> >>
>
> Should this also be extended for option 249 as used
> by MS systems to do the
> same thing? I have no idea why they use 249, but
> the description of option
> 249 in packet-bootp.c already caters for that.
>
> I modified the dissector to do the same decoding for
> option 249 and it works
> fine for me.
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Graham Bloice
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545433