Hi Simon,<br><br>Many thanks for replying. <span style="font-weight: bold;">Basically, I'm trying to add support for the</span><br style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">DHCP requirements that are needed for DSL Forum's TR-111 standard,
</span><br style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">in my gateway device.</span><br><br>>The existing support for non-vendor-identifying encapsulated options is<br>>in two places. The data gets laid out in the packet in the second half
<br>>of do_options() in src/rfc2131.c.<br><br>I hope you're talking about do_opt() or do_req_options() because I don't<br>find do_options() in the code.<br><br>And yes, I'm aware of GNU GPL. I just meant to make sure the author
<br>does not place any proprietary licence. So. I'll definitely share the source<br>once I'm done with this.<br><br>Thanks again,<br>Kunal<br> <br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 9/14/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">
Simon Kelley</b> <<a href="mailto:simon@thekelleys.org.uk">simon@thekelleys.org.uk</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
~ Kunal Sharma ~ wrote:<br>> Hi Friends,<br>><br>> I'm new to this list and I'm new to DNSMASQ. Hence, this query !<br>><br>> I need to be able to add/enable support for DHCP option number 125 in<br>
> my current implementation. At this point, since I've not had a look<br>> in, I'm not even aware that this is already there or not.<br>><br>> Would anyone here be generous to help me with the following -
<br>><br>> 1) How to find out if this option is supported and/or enabled ?<br><br>Asking here is good. The answer is that it's not supported, except in<br>the sense that you can code absolutely any option as a sequence of hex
<br>octets. Since RFC3925 options are fairly complex, that's probably not a<br>good solution unless you have one, very simple option to encapsulate.<br><br>> 2) If this is supported but disabled, how do I enable it (some compilation
<br>> flag etc) ?<br><br>N/A<br><br> > 3) If I need to add support, how to go about it e.g.<br>> general directions needed, not the spoon-feeding stuff.<br><br>The existing support for non-vendor-identifying encapsulated options is
<br>in two places. The data gets laid out in the packet in the second half<br>of do_options() in src/rfc2131.c. That's quite hairy code, but it should<br>be extendable to option 125 without too many problems.<br><br>dhcp-option lines in the config file and command line are parsed into a
<br>linked-list of struct dhcp_opt in parse_dhcp_opt() in src/option.c.<br>That's hairy too (sorry!). option-60 encapsulated options look like:<br><br>dhcp-option=vendor:<some vendor string>,<option data><br>
<br>That could be extended to cope with something like<br><br>dhcp-option=vendor-id:<enterprise-number>,<option data><br><br><br><br>> Also, am I<br>> freely allowed to make my own changes to DNSMASQ ?<br>
><br><br>dnsmasq is licensed under the GNU GPL, in the unlikely event that you're<br>not familiar with that, Googling will find you several decades worth of<br>reading very quickly. The deal is basically this: you can make changes
<br>to dnsmasq for your own use: if you sell/give the changed binary to<br>anyone outside your organisation, you have to make the changed source<br>code available as well (and under the same terms).<br><br>If you add this functionality, I'd appreciate getting a copy of the patch.
<br><br><br>Cheers,<br><br>Simon.<br></blockquote></div><br>