On Tue, 10 Dec 2013 10:10:27 +0100 (CET) Harald Barth <[email protected]> wrote:
> If this should be catched by the "avoid 127/16 code path" then there > must be a bug somewhere. My first guess would be host vs network byte > order before even looking at the code. A server advertising 127/16 should be prevented by this code, yes. And it does seem to be; I haven't seen anything in this thread showing a server advertising such an address. I explained earlier in the thread how this situation can happen, and RT 131784 has some ways where the code could be changed to avoid this kind of situation. -- Andrew Deason [email protected] _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-info mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
