Vendor option being deleted

[Scott Wedekind]

Great question.  Using the same theory I was able to reproduce the problem on each corresponding vendor code in that list.  Other vendor codes (6) in the same space don't trigger the message.

WARNING: server ignoring option OptionCode58 in configuration file.
WARNING: server ignoring option OptionCode59 in configuration file.
WARNING: server ignoring option OptionCode51 in configuration file.

option space MyVendorName;
option MyVendorName.WorkingVendorOption code 6 = unsigned integer 16;
option MyVendorName.OptionCode51 code 51 = unsigned integer 16;
option MyVendorName.OptionCode58 code 58 = unsigned integer 16;
option MyVendorName.OptionCode59 code 59 = unsigned integer 16;
subnet 5.0.2.0 netmask 255.255.255.0
{
    option subnet-mask 255.255.255.0;
    option broadcast-address 5.0.2.255;
    option routers 5.0.2.1;
    option MyVendorName.WorkingVendorOption 123;
    option MyVendorName.OptionCode58 123;
    option MyVendorName.OptionCode59 1111;
    option MyVendorName.OptionCode51 222;
    pool
    {

        range 5.0.2.20 5.0.2.30;
    }

}

Does changing "58" to something else, say "1" make the error go away
(other than now sending the wrong code)?  If so that would be a pretty
good clue that you are on the right track.

John


> Can anyone verify this is a bug?
>
> During a recent migration from a much older DHCPD server to one based upon =
> DHCP-4.1-ESV-R6, it was noticed that a vendor option wasn't functioning, an=
> d the log file reported that the option was being ignored during the dhcpd =
> service startup.  I don't own the server, so I can't easily provide the ent=
> ire log file or conf file.  Removing the

---Snip----

Scott Wedekind


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.isc.org/pipermail/dhcp-users/attachments/20121016/91db9b85/attachment.html>