Vendor identifying vendor things #144
Open
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
The VI vendor info still treats the option data opaquely instead of as a sequence of dhcp-like TLV.
reynir
force-pushed
the
vendor-identifying
branch
from
1087c8b to
02da237
Compare
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This implements https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3925.html except
Vi_vendor_infoleaves the sub options unparsed (they must be dhcp-style TLVs; this implementation leave them as an opaque string). I may implement that as well.I wrote a test from my understanding of the option (and an incompatible sample). To make the test work better I had to change the semantics of
options_of_bufso that it is not responsible for skipping the BOOTP packet. This is also more in line with the behavior ofbuf_of_options. This is a breaking change, but I have found no outside users of that underdocumented function. The test is very synthetic, and more tests would be nice. I haven't otherwise tested it.