On 13-09-23 02:27 PM, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
If you disagree with this approach (that is: if you think that
"224.0.0.0/24" here is not gradual improvement but a step in the wrong
direction),
Of course I'm not saying that. I think that's pretty clear. The only
point we disagree on is the size o
On 13-09-23 10:05 AM, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
Packets sent by guests on virbrN, *or* by dnsmasq on the same, to
- 255.255.255.255/32 (netmask-independent local network broadcast
address), or to
- 224.0.0.0/24 (local subnetwork multicast range)
All multicast, not just the local subnet multicast n
I'm not sure if everyone that needs to see this discussion are
subscribed to RH bugzilla bug #709418 so I will repeat my comments from
comment #12 on that bug here:
On 13-05-27 10:34 PM, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> Packets sent by guests on virbrN, *or* by dnsmasq on the same, to
> - 255.255.255.255/32
On 13-01-08 11:59 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
>
> I noticed this hadn't been applied yet, and was wondering if you were
> still planning on resubmitting this patch.
Yeah, I'd definitely like to. It's just not bubbled back up to the top
of the TODO list again yet. Hopefully very soon.
Cheers,
b.
On 12-12-11 06:24 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
>
> Thanks!
NP. Had it just lying around here anyway. :-)
> Comment should now mention 4 rules.
Doh! Missed that in the patch port. Updated in my local copy (which I
will of course resend once all of the initial review is done).
>> +/* exempt mu
Hi,
Per the request on https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=657918
please find attached a patch that should address the issue.
I'm not subscribed to this list though (I know, it's pretty rude, but
my e-mail traffic is already too heavy to add another list to it), so
if you could either CC
