Kurt Roeckx writes (Re: glibc's getaddrinfo() sort order):
It's atleast in the spirit of the rfc to prefer one that's on the local
network. It might be the intention of rule 9, but then rule 9 isn't
very well written.
I agree that applying RFC3484 section 6 rule 9 to IPv4 addresses is a
Author: aurel32
Date: 2007-09-07 08:22:29 + (Fri, 07 Sep 2007)
New Revision: 2535
Modified:
glibc-package/trunk/debian/changelog
glibc-package/trunk/debian/sysdeps/amd64.mk
Log:
* sysdeps/amd64.mk: uses x86_64 headers also for the i486 flavour now
that they are compatible.
On ven, sep 07, 2007 at 07:15:42 +, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
On Thu, Sep 06, 2007 at 11:46:54PM +, Joey Hess wrote:
Pierre Habouzit wrote:
Also note that probably many many Windows machines work that way (the
RFC was written by a MS guy). And this behaviour impacts software
On Fri, Sep 07, 2007 at 01:06:06AM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
It's atleast in the spirit of the rfc to prefer one that's on the local
network. It might be the intention of rule 9, but then rule 9 isn't
very well written.
Rule 9 seems perfectly well written, it just does something you
On ven, sep 07, 2007 at 07:45:52 +, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
On ven, sep 07, 2007 at 07:15:42 +, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
On Thu, Sep 06, 2007 at 11:46:54PM +, Joey Hess wrote:
Pierre Habouzit wrote:
Also note that probably many many Windows machines work that way (the
RFC was
On Thu, Sep 06, 2007 at 11:46:54PM +, Joey Hess wrote:
Pierre Habouzit wrote:
The point is, there is an RFC, and we put a patch so that admins can
disable it using gai.conf.
There is an RFC is not always a good excuse for breaking existing systems.
Admins can disable it is not a
On Fri, Sep 07, 2007 at 06:54:21PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
OTOH, getaddrinfo is meant to give a close answer, and doing prefix
matching on NATed addresses isn't the Right Thing. For IPv6, that's fine
because it's handled by earlier scoping rules. For NATed IPv4 though the
prefix we should
7 matches
Mail list logo
