Adding Option 121 (Classless static route)

[CyberShadow]

I've read the RFC and it seems to describe something that doesn't align with the implementation here. For one thing, it looks like the route descriptors are variable-length.

[Dronec]

good point! I've oversimplifed it and only looked at the output of my local DHCP server. Should've read the RFC first. I'll update the code and make another push.

[CyberShadow]

I've made some small changes, could you please check if it still works on your end?

[Dronec]

I've made some small changes, could you please check if it still works on your end?

Pulled, recompiled and tested, looks good

[CyberShadow]

Thanks!

[CyberShadow]

Oops, actually I forgot to push the bulk of the changes I wanted to include... I pushed them to master.

https://github.com/CyberShadow/dhcptest/commit/19cd1e2fe13c779bce67dc7bbfe526a6d3d31f08

[Dronec]

Thanks!

Thank you! This tool came very handy for testing DHCP design.

[Dronec]

Oops, actually I forgot to push the bulk of the changes I wanted to include... I pushed them to master.

19cd1e2

Hate to say that, but the refactoring broke it:

You can fix it by changing row #406 to

ubyte subnetSignificantBytes = cast(ubyte)ceil(maskBits * 0.125);

[CyberShadow]

Hate to say that, but the refactoring broke it:

Well, thanks for saying it! I forgot the parens. 🤦

I pushed a fix, could you please test it?

[Dronec]

Hate to say that, but the refactoring broke it:

Well, thanks for saying it! I forgot the parens. 🤦

I pushed a fix, could you please test it?

tested, everything looks good. Thanks!