rfc3315_Feature #6544: RFC 3046 DHCP Option 82 support (and RFC 3315/4649/4580 for IPv6) - pfSense -...

最新推荐文章于 2021-07-13 22:01:16 发布

张泰玩

最新推荐文章于 2021-07-13 22:01:16 发布

阅读量248

点赞数

文章标签： rfc3315

本文链接：https://blog.csdn.net/weixin_33677704/article/details/112932244

版权

博客介绍了DHCP Relay Agents的Agent Circuit ID和Agent Remote ID子选项，指出它们应被视为不透明值，由服务器进行精确字符串匹配。还列举了两者在不同场景下的含义，最后提出实现该功能时，使用可修改正则表达式的可选输入框可能更具前瞻性。

摘要生成于 C知道，由 DeepSeek-R1 满血版支持，前往体验 >

Agent Circuit ID Sub-option: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3046#section-3.1

Agent Remote ID Sub-option: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3046#section-3.2

Both are supposed to be opaque:

"The Circuit ID SHOULD be considered an opaque value, with policies based on exact string match only; that is, the Circuit ID SHOULD NOT be internally parsed by the server."

"The option [NB: Remote ID] SHOULD be considered an opaque value, with policies based on exact string match only; that is, the option SHOULD NOT be internally parsed by the server."

In addition, the meaning of both are left to the specific implementations of each particular DHCP Relay Agents:

Circuit ID:

- Router interface number

- Switching Hub port number

- Remote Access Server port number

- Frame Relay DLCI

- ATM virtual circuit number

- Cable Data virtual circuit number

Remote ID:

– a "caller ID" telephone number for dial-up connection

-- a "user name" prompted for by a Remote Access Server

-- a remote caller ATM address

-- a "modem ID" of a cable data modem

-- the remote IP address of a point-to-point link

-- a remote X.25 address for X.25 connections

IMHO, each switch/router/ras manufacturer/model would have its own implementation that would invalidate the code below (or above depending on sorting :) )

If one would be to implement such a feature, maybe an optional input box with some modifiable regex that would be applied on the raw strings might be more future-proof ?