On Wed, Nov 21, 2007 at 12:04:55AM -0700, Neal McBurnett wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 21, 2007 at 07:28:01AM +0100, Ante Karamati? wrote:
> > On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 19:15:20 -0700
> > Neal McBurnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > I don't really have a well informed opinion on the topic of zeroconf
> >
On Wed, Nov 21, 2007 at 07:28:01AM +0100, Ante Karamati? wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 19:15:20 -0700
> Neal McBurnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I don't really have a well informed opinion on the topic of zeroconf
> > and/or LLMNR, despite having paid some attention to it.
>
> It's very sim
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 19:15:20 -0700
Neal McBurnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't really have a well informed opinion on the topic of zeroconf
> and/or LLMNR, despite having paid some attention to it.
It's very simple. Both technologies claim one undefined domain. And
this discussion went in
On Nov 21, 2007 3:37 AM, Scott Kitterman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Tuesday 20 November 2007 20:46, Sebastien Estienne wrote:
> > On Nov 21, 2007 1:48 AM, Scott Kitterman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 20 November 2007 17:18, Neal McBurnett wrote:
> > > > I haven't really caught
On Tue, 2007-11-20 at 14:59 -0700, David L. Willson wrote:
> About this .local domain: I know there's an RFC that defines it for use
> with multicast, but I was not aware that "the Microsoft one is the one
> the IETF standardized". I always thought that Microsoft made this
> recommendation for us
On Tuesday 20 November 2007 20:46, Sebastien Estienne wrote:
> On Nov 21, 2007 1:48 AM, Scott Kitterman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tuesday 20 November 2007 17:18, Neal McBurnett wrote:
> > > I haven't really caught up over the last 18 months with what has
> > > happened in the big IETF debat
Sebastian posted a good response on the real issue at hand, so feel
free to ignore this post of mine unless you want to hear me
pontificate on why Informational != IETF_standard :-)
I don't really have a well informed opinion on the topic of zeroconf
and/or LLMNR, despite having paid some attent
On Nov 21, 2007 1:48 AM, Scott Kitterman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tuesday 20 November 2007 17:18, Neal McBurnett wrote:
>
> > I haven't really caught up over the last 18 months with what has
> > happened in the big IETF debates about mDNS (so-called "Apple") vs
> > LLMNR (Link-local Multicas
On Tuesday 20 November 2007 17:18, Neal McBurnett wrote:
> I haven't really caught up over the last 18 months with what has
> happened in the big IETF debates about mDNS (so-called "Apple") vs
> LLMNR (Link-local Multicast Name Resolution - so called "Microsoft").
>
> But I haven't heard that ther
This one doesn't seem to have made it to the list.
Scott K
-- Forwarded Message --
Subject: Re: Server issues
Date: Tuesday 20 November 2007 17:18
From: Neal McBurnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Sebastien Estienne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Scott Kitterman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ubuntu
On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 08:28:44PM +0100, Sebastien Estienne wrote:
> On Nov 20, 2007 8:15 PM, Scott Kitterman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 19:05:23 +0100 "Sebastien Estienne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > >FYI macOsX has exactly the same feature enabled by default, it's
About this .local domain: I know there's an RFC that defines it for use
with multicast, but I was not aware that "the Microsoft one is the one
the IETF standardized". I always thought that Microsoft made this
recommendation for using .local in violation of the RFC, like they
violate the CSS stand
Hi,
Here are the minutes of the meeting. They can also be found online, with
the irc logs, here: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MeetingLogs/Server/20071120.
== Review ACTION points from previous meeting ==
zul wrote a wiki page detailing his plans for Xen in the next release:
https://wiki.ubuntu.com
Sebastien Estienne wrote the following on 20.11.2007 21:48
<<-snip->>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ sudo netstat -upna | grep dhclient
> udp0 0 0.0.0.0:68 0.0.0.0:*
> 6708/dhclient
> is it only accessible from inside?
dhclient is no service
--
On Nov 20, 2007 9:06 PM, Thilo Six <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sebastien Estienne wrote the following on 20.11.2007 17:47
>
> <<-snip->>
>
> > No open ports by default?
> > How would you use dhcp udp/68 or dns udp/53 without opening ports by
> > default?
>
> OP means from outside, not from inside
Sebastien Estienne wrote the following on 20.11.2007 17:47
<<-snip->>
> No open ports by default?
> How would you use dhcp udp/68 or dns udp/53 without opening ports by default?
OP means from outside, not from inside.
bye
--
Thilo
key: 0x4A411E09
--
ubuntu-server mailing list
ubuntu-server
On Nov 20, 2007 8:15 PM, Scott Kitterman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 19:05:23 +0100 "Sebastien Estienne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >On Nov 20, 2007 6:10 PM, Ante Karamatiæ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 16:15:59 +0100
> >> "Sebastien Estienne" <[EMAIL
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 19:05:23 +0100 "Sebastien Estienne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On Nov 20, 2007 6:10 PM, Ante Karamatiæ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 16:15:59 +0100
>> "Sebastien Estienne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ cat /etc/default/avahi-daemon
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 19:05:23 +0100
"Sebastien Estienne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Could you be more specific about the issue you had?
You said it your self. It doesn't work if you use .local domain. You
have zeroconf/avahi claiming .local domain and DNS server also
claiming .local. And, since
> > Why do you want to "remove" it, disabling it is not enough?
> Excellent question, and raises the issue of why I hate it so much. The
> thing keeps coming back from the dead, especially at upgrade time.
>
>
> > It's a community effort, you can now add this information to the
> documentation.
On Nov 20, 2007 6:10 PM, Ante Karamatić <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 16:15:59 +0100
> "Sebastien Estienne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ cat /etc/default/avahi-daemon
> > # 0 = don't start, 1 = start
> > AVAHI_DAEMON_START=1
>
> But, that's not enough. Av
On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 06:10:54PM +0100, Ante Karamatić wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 16:15:59 +0100
> "Sebastien Estienne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ cat /etc/default/avahi-daemon
> > # 0 = don't start, 1 = start
> > AVAHI_DAEMON_START=1
>
> But, that's not enough. Ava
> > (2) AVAHI_DAEMON_START=0 should be default, IMHO.
> This is your opinion, some people doesn't agree, that's why it's
> possible to disable it.
Yes, reasonable minds can differ. That's not the issue. The issue is what
should be the default. One could just as easily argue, as I do, that avahi
sh
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 16:15:59 +0100
"Sebastien Estienne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ cat /etc/default/avahi-daemon
> # 0 = don't start, 1 = start
> AVAHI_DAEMON_START=1
But, that's not enough. Avahi (and everything done to make it
usable) breaks some stuff on computers on whi
On Nov 20, 2007 5:29 PM, Scott Kitterman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tuesday 20 November 2007 10:56, Loye Young wrote:
>
> > > About not starting avahi-daemon: (this is ubuntu/debian specific)
> >
> >
> > (1) Your comments are helpful and should be easily accessible in the
> > documentation.
>
On Nov 20, 2007 4:54 PM, Loye Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > About documentation, i think that every avahi tools has a manpage
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ man avahi-
> > avahi-autoipd avahi-autoipd.action avahi-daemon
> > avahi-daemon.conf
>
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] :~$ man avahi
> No man
On Tuesday 20 November 2007 10:56, Loye Young wrote:
> > About not starting avahi-daemon: (this is ubuntu/debian specific)
>
>
> (1) Your comments are helpful and should be easily accessible in the
> documentation.
> (2) AVAHI_DAEMON_START=0 should be default, IMHO. Better yet, avahi
> shouldn't
BTW--
My comments on documentation are independent of my comments for Avahi and
apply to the system as a whole.
On Nov 20, 2007 8:52 AM, Loye Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I can't be at the meeting today, but I have two issues that trouble me.
>
>
> AVAHI
> I absolutely hate avahi. I don't w
> About documentation, i think that every avahi tools has a manpage
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ man avahi-
> avahi-autoipd avahi-autoipd.action avahi-daemon
> avahi-daemon.conf
[EMAIL PROTECTED] :~$ man avahi
No manual entry for avahi
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ man avahi-daemon # This does have a
On Nov 20, 2007 3:52 PM, Loye Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I can't be at the meeting today, but I have two issues that trouble me.
>
>
> AVAHI
> I absolutely hate avahi. I don't want my machines to be advertising
> services and trying to find them, especially when I am running a
> server that
I can't be at the meeting today, but I have two issues that trouble me.
AVAHI
I absolutely hate avahi. I don't want my machines to be advertising
services and trying to find them, especially when I am running a
server that's connected straight to the Internet. But getting avahi
off a system is ha
31 matches
Mail list logo
