pfSense

comment from https://forum.netgate.com/topic/64792/usd-50-dhcp-option-82-on-status_dhcp_leases-php-page/12:
Please see RFC 3046:

Agent Circuit ID Sub-option: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3046#section-3.1
Agent Remote ID Sub-option: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3046#section-3.2
Both are supposed to be opaque:
"The Circuit ID SHOULD be considered an opaque value, with policies based on exact string match only; that is, the Circuit ID SHOULD NOT be internally parsed by the server."
"The option [NB: Remote ID] SHOULD be considered an opaque value, with policies based on exact string match only; that is, the option SHOULD NOT be internally parsed by the server."

In addition, the meaning of both are left to the specific implementations of each particular DHCP Relay Agents:
Circuit ID:
- Router interface number
- Switching Hub port number
- Remote Access Server port number
- Frame Relay DLCI
- ATM virtual circuit number
- Cable Data virtual circuit number
Remote ID:
– a "caller ID" telephone number for dial-up connection
-- a "user name" prompted for by a Remote Access Server
-- a remote caller ATM address
-- a "modem ID" of a cable data modem
-- the remote IP address of a point-to-point link
-- a remote X.25 address for X.25 connections

IMHO, each switch/router/ras manufacturer/model would have its own implementation that would invalidate the code below (or above depending on sorting :) )

If one would be to implement such a feature, maybe an optional input box with some modifiable regex that would be applied on the raw strings might be more future-proof ?