On Sun, 21 Jun 2015 19:55:50 +0200 (CEST) Bodo Eggert <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sun, 21 Jun 2015, Geert Stappers wrote: > > Control: tag -1 moreinfo > > On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 02:14:17PM +0200, Bodo Eggert wrote: > > > > The valid hostname "52-54-0-12-34-56" is recognized as bad > > > while it should be valid according to rfc1123 (Section 2.1). > > > > What programma and/or device did recognize "52-54-0-12-34-56" as bad? > > udhcpc, which is part of busybox > > > How was the error encountered? Any error messages? > > The debian installer will use the hostname "bad", because that's what it's > told by udhcpc. > > > Please elaborate what the reason for this bugreport is. > > busybox/udhcpc should recognize this hostname as being valid since it > conforms to current network standards (I cheked it). The old standard did > disallow a number in the first character. > > > > Capture of the DHCP reply: > > > be1.lrz.bootps > 192.168.7.107.bootpc: BOOTP/DHCP, Reply, length 300, > > > xid 0x4cc35164, Flags [none] > > > Vendor-rfc1048 Extensions > > > DHCP-Message Option 53, length 1: ACK > > > Hostname Option 12, length 16: "52-54-0-12-34-56" > > > > That is content from a network packet sent by a DHCP server, > > which might be configured for providing such hostname. > > Yes, that's my dhcp server. I figured knowing the DHCP reply might help. > >
Hello, I believe the fix is available upstream in the patch I reference in the following bug report: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=794049 I'm not sure this is a duplicate bug of this one, I didn't try with a hostname. -- \o/ Arthur G Gandi.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: https://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
