* Colin Watson:
[*] 1.0.0.0 isn't even a valid IP address, is it?
Depends on the situation. You wouldn't want to give a host that
address,
Why not? Subnet zero is no longer reserved. The whole /8 is currently
not assigned, but that's a different matter.
but it might be quite reasonable
On Tue, Dec 25, 2007 at 07:40:24PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Colin Watson:
[Please don't remove attributions. Vincent Lefevre wrote this bit.]
[*] 1.0.0.0 isn't even a valid IP address, is it?
Depends on the situation. You wouldn't want to give a host that
address,
Why not?
On 2007-12-25 21:38:48 +, Colin Watson wrote:
I was under the impression that it was conventional even if not required
to reserve host zero in a given subnet to identify the network itself,
to avoid confusion of networks with hosts.
I thought for this reason 1.0.0.0 could be detected as
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
reassign 457472 glibc
Bug#457472: openssh-client: ssh resolves some hosts to 1.0.0.0
Bug reassigned from package `openssh-client' to `glibc'.
thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug tracking system
On Mon, Dec 24, 2007 at 03:07:51PM +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
On 2007-12-24 10:49:32 +, Colin Watson wrote:
I can't tell for sure from your strace (in future, use -s 1024 so that
buffers passed to system calls aren't truncated to quite such a short
length), but your diagnosis sounds
On 2007-12-24 21:48:18 +, Colin Watson wrote:
On Mon, Dec 24, 2007 at 05:01:28PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
On Mon, Dec 24, 2007 at 03:37:39PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
Have you considered asking your router vendor for a firmware
upgrade? It sounds like a straightforward bug in
6 matches
Mail list logo
