Update of DHCP/common

[David W. Hankins]

On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 08:37:58PM -0500, Ted Lemon wrote:
> The problem with this change, and the reason why it was not that way prior to 
> the change, is that people will now write "option-144 xx:xx:xx:xx;" in their 
> configuration files, and then when option-144 is defined, their configuration 
> files will break.   So I don't think this is a good solution to the problem.

i agree, it's not entirely optimal.

on the one hand, if i do it right, then i make parser changes and risk
(again) breaking something really hard to spot.

on the other, if i wait for 3.0.2rc to fix this, then we still have
people getting #'s in their lease db's while 3.0.2 candidacy progresses.

i think this is the lesser evil.

and one of the things in 3.0.2rc work will be to produce a parsing system
so that unknown names are never illegal in future versions, if my current
line of thinking persists:

	unknown-option 144 xx:xx:xx:xx;

in which case the option names get less relevant.  this parsing rule could
easily emit a warning when it turns out the numbered option is known after
all.

-- 
David W. Hankins		"If you don't do it right the first time,
DHCPD Maintainer			you'll just have to do it again."
						-- Jack T. Hankins