Bug#438179: RFC3484 rule 9 active again in glibc 2.7-5.
Ian Jackson a écrit : Aurelien Jarno writes (Re: RFC3484 rule 9 active again in glibc 2.7-5.): An IP which uses the same IP range as your computer, as defined by the netmask. In short a local server which can be reached without a gateway. Ah. I see. So what you mean is that it will now: * prefer a server in the same subnet as one of the local interfaces as defined by the netmask on that interface, to a server which is not; * not otherwise sort servers according to their IPv4 address unless specifically configured ? That sounds exactly right. If you mean that _for servers on some local subnet_ it will prefer to use servers with a longer common prefix with the interface address, then I think that's wrong. It is actually what is implemented. IP on different subnet are not sorted, IP on some local subnet are sorted by a longer common prefix with the interface address. -- .''`. Aurelien Jarno | GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73 : :' : Debian developer | Electrical Engineer `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED] `-people.debian.org/~aurel32 | www.aurel32.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#438179: RFC3484 rule 9 active again in glibc 2.7-5.
Aurelien Jarno writes (Re: RFC3484 rule 9 active again in glibc 2.7-5.): IP on different subnet are not sorted, IP on some local subnet are sorted by a longer common prefix with the interface address. Err, pardon my language, but WTF ?! What on earth is the justification for that ? Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#438179: RFC3484 rule 9 active again in glibc 2.7-5.
Aurelien Jarno writes (Re: RFC3484 rule 9 active again in glibc 2.7-5.): An IP which uses the same IP range as your computer, as defined by the netmask. In short a local server which can be reached without a gateway. Ah. I see. So what you mean is that it will now: * prefer a server in the same subnet as one of the local interfaces as defined by the netmask on that interface, to a server which is not; * not otherwise sort servers according to their IPv4 address unless specifically configured ? That sounds exactly right. If you mean that _for servers on some local subnet_ it will prefer to use servers with a longer common prefix with the interface address, then I think that's wrong. So for example, my machine here has eth0 172.18.45.2/24. You're saying (I hope) that it would prefer 172.18.45.6 (because it's on the subnet local to eth0) to 172.31.80.8 (which is not), which is fine. If you're saying that it would prefer 172.18.45.6 to 172.18.45.11 because .6 has a longer common prefix with .2 than .11, then I think that's wrong. But that would be pretty weird so I assume that's not what you mean. Thanks, Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#438179: RFC3484 rule 9 active again in glibc 2.7-5.
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 09:18:21PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: Aurelien Jarno writes (Re: RFC3484 rule 9 active again in glibc 2.7-5.): Upstream has committed a fix in the CVS (without telling anybody) so that for IPv4 addresses rule 9 is only applied when source and destination addresses are in the same subnet. I guess this is very close to the wanted behaviour reported in this bug log, so I am reassigning the bug back to the libc6 package. It will be closed by the next upload. I see. Thanks for letting us know. What does `in the same subnet' mean ? An IP which uses the same IP range as your computer, as defined by the netmask. In short a local server which can be reached without a gateway. -- .''`. Aurelien Jarno | GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73 : :' : Debian developer | Electrical Engineer `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED] `-people.debian.org/~aurel32 | www.aurel32.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#438179: RFC3484 rule 9 active again in glibc 2.7-5.
Aurelien Jarno writes (Re: RFC3484 rule 9 active again in glibc 2.7-5.): Upstream has committed a fix in the CVS (without telling anybody) so that for IPv4 addresses rule 9 is only applied when source and destination addresses are in the same subnet. I guess this is very close to the wanted behaviour reported in this bug log, so I am reassigning the bug back to the libc6 package. It will be closed by the next upload. I see. Thanks for letting us know. What does `in the same subnet' mean ? Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#438179: RFC3484 rule 9 active again in glibc 2.7-5.
reassign 438179 libc6 thanks On Mon, Jan 14, 2008 at 09:06:22PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote: For those that didn't notice this yet, 2.7-5 reverted the change of 2.7-4. So testing and unstable uses rule 9 again. Upstream has committed a fix in the CVS (without telling anybody) so that for IPv4 addresses rule 9 is only applied when source and destination addresses are in the same subnet. I guess this is very close to the wanted behaviour reported in this bug log, so I am reassigning the bug back to the libc6 package. It will be closed by the next upload. -- .''`. Aurelien Jarno | GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73 : :' : Debian developer | Electrical Engineer `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED] `-people.debian.org/~aurel32 | www.aurel32.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#438179: RFC3484 rule 9 active again in glibc 2.7-5.
For those that didn't notice this yet, 2.7-5 reverted the change of 2.7-4. So testing and unstable uses rule 9 again. Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
