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:
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.
--
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
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
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
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
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]
7 matches
Mail list logo