Support client last transaction time (cltt) for IPv4, too #34
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
added 2 commits
February 15, 2021 17:40
The _hardware "private" variable was only used to hold a temporary list whose values were immediately assigned to hardware and ethernet public variables.
Previously, the client last transaction time (cltt) was only parsed for IPv6 despite also being defined for IPv4. Now the corresponding last_communication public variable is assigned in the BaseLease class instead of in Lease6.
aaron-sierra
changed the title
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Add
clttsupport for IPv4 leases (requested in #31), like it has been for IPv6 leases.This changes the prototype of the
Lease6class API by dropping theclttpositional argument, but I hope there is low risk that users are directly instantiating anything other thanIscDhcpLeases.This also adds a big
FIXMEquestioning the reliability of data submitted with the problem case from #20 😁