On 2022-05-06 08:26 UTC, Stuart Henderson <stu.li...@spacehopper.org> wrote: > On 2022-05-04, nace...@narwhals.org <nace...@narwhals.org> wrote: >> https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-tech&m=162652200109398&w=2 I disagree. >> while its technically correct with the rfc, in practice, not many OSes >> rigidly enforces not using the router option when 121 is present that >> I've used. > > It's not just technically correct, handling this differently would be > *in*correct, it is a MUST in the RFC. > >> This is how dhcpleased works in -current: >> 1) if a client using dhcpleased gets an option 121 set of routes, it >> ignores the dhcp router option. > > right. > >> 2) dhcpleased enforces that it wont hand out a 0.0.0.0 destination route >> in option 121 > > if this is the case, it's a problem, option 121 routes must be able to set > 0.0.0.0/0. can you show your working for figuring this out as that might > give a clue what's wrong? debug logs and packet captures might help.
It is not the case. This just works fine in dhcpleased(8). Also, dhcpd(8) does not even hand out option 3 when option 121 is configured. (Also dhcpleased does not "hand out" anything. I assume the OP means "configures a default route in the FIB.") -- I'm not entirely sure you are real.
