Hi,
On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 00:23:01 +
Ben Morrow b...@morrow.me.uk said:
ben ip6addrctl does more than just order v4 vs v6: it also sorts the v6
ben addresses, in a way which can be quite important. IMHO both the v6
ben addresses returned from getipnodebyname and the addresses returned from
Hi,
On Wed, 9 Jan 2013 20:28:28 +0100
Ulrich Sp$(D+S(Brlein u...@freebsd.org said:
uqs The source address problem I'm now talking about is happening on my
uqs router at home, which has a Sixxs tunnel and needs to use AICCU of all
uqs things to talk to the outside world, sixxs-aiccu will
On 01/08/2013 23:33, Hiroki Sato wrote:
Ulrich Spörlein u...@freebsd.org wrote
in 20130108184051.gi35...@acme.spoerlein.net:
uq After setting this, it now looks like this:
uq root@acme: ~# ip6addrctl
uq Prefix Prec Label Use
uq ::1/128
Hi,
On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 07:33:54 +0900 (JST)
Hiroki Sato h...@freebsd.org said:
hrs I think this just hides the problem. If gshapiro@'s explanation is
hrs correct, no :::0.0.0.0/96 address should be returned if the name
hrs resolution works fine...
I changed getipnodebyname to obey
On Wed, 2013-01-09 at 14:14:18 +0100, Michiel Boland wrote:
On 01/08/2013 23:33, Hiroki Sato wrote:
Ulrich Spörlein u...@freebsd.org wrote
in 20130108184051.gi35...@acme.spoerlein.net:
uq After setting this, it now looks like this:
uq root@acme: ~# ip6addrctl
uq Prefix
Ulrich Spörlein u...@freebsd.org wrote
in 20130109142111.gl35...@acme.spoerlein.net:
uq On Wed, 2013-01-09 at 14:14:18 +0100, Michiel Boland wrote:
uq On 01/08/2013 23:33, Hiroki Sato wrote:
uq Ulrich Spörlein u...@freebsd.org wrote
uq in 20130108184051.gi35...@acme.spoerlein.net:
uq
Hi,
On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 23:42:10 +0900 (JST)
Hiroki Sato h...@freebsd.org said:
hrs This is because the prefix on the interface has the first priority.
hrs Why don't you use an fe80::/10 address to route packets to the other
hrs endpoint of tun0?
I don't like this policy. I think it
Hi,
On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 23:01:52 +0900
Hajimu UMEMOTO u...@freebsd.org said:
ume I changed getipnodebyname to obey ip6addrctl in years past. I read
ume RFC 2553 again, and realize that it mentions IPv6 addresses are
ume returned 1st. So, my past change might be bad thing. X-(
I've just
Quoth Hiroki Sato h...@freebsd.org:
Gregory Shapiro gshap...@freebsd.org wrote
in 20130108180920.gj36...@rugsucker.smi.sendmail.com:
gs How can I unstupid sendmail here?
gs
gs I don't think sendmail is being stupid here as it is doing what it has
gs been doing under 8.x and 9.1 (the
Quoth Hajimu UMEMOTO u...@freebsd.org:
On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 23:01:52 +0900
Hajimu UMEMOTO u...@freebsd.org said:
ume I changed getipnodebyname to obey ip6addrctl in years past. I read
ume RFC 2553 again, and realize that it mentions IPv6 addresses are
ume returned 1st. So, my past change
Ben Morrow b...@morrow.me.uk wrote
in 20130109154435.ga81...@anubis.morrow.me.uk:
be So getipnodebyname is behaving correctly here: the host has both IPv4
be and IPv6 addresses, and Sendmail is requesting both native and v4-mapped
be addresses be returned in all cases. The v4-mapped addresses
Hi,
On Wed, 9 Jan 2013 16:29:00 +
Ben Morrow b...@morrow.me.uk said:
ben Where does it say that? All I can find (but I might be being stupid) is
ben the bit in the description of AI_ALL where it says 'A query is first
ben made for records and if successful, the IPv6 addresses are
ben
On Wed, 2013-01-09 at 23:42:10 +0900, Hiroki Sato wrote:
Ulrich Spörlein u...@freebsd.org wrote
in 20130109142111.gl35...@acme.spoerlein.net:
On Wed, 2013-01-09 at 14:14:18 +0100, Michiel Boland wrote:
On 01/08/2013 23:33, Hiroki Sato wrote:
Ulrich Spörlein u...@freebsd.org wrote
Quoth Hajimu UMEMOTO u...@freebsd.org:
Hi,
On Wed, 9 Jan 2013 16:29:00 +
Ben Morrow b...@morrow.me.uk said:
ben Where does it say that? All I can find (but I might be being stupid) is
ben the bit in the description of AI_ALL where it says 'A query is first
ben made for records
In message 20130110002257.ga84...@anubis.morrow.me.uk, Ben Morrow writes:
Yeah; I agree that the v4-mapped option is pretty useless (even when
using a stack which supports it). I suspect the IETF people were trying
too hard to account for the case of a v6-only stack talking to the v4
How can I unstupid sendmail here?
I don't think sendmail is being stupid here as it is doing what it has been
doing under 8.x and 9.1 (the code is the same). I think something changed with
the upgrade to 9.1. As far as tracking it down, the sendmail code does:
On 01/08/2013 16:18, Ulrich Spörlein wrote:
[...]
98054 sendmail CALL bind(0x7,0x708dbc,0x1c)
98054 sendmail STRU struct sockaddr { AF_INET6, [:::88.198.49.12]:587 }
98054 sendmail RET bind -1 errno 49 Can't assign requested address
Yeah right ... I don't want an IPv6-mapped-IPv4
On Tue, 2013-01-08 at 18:36:34 +0100, Michiel Boland wrote:
On 01/08/2013 16:18, Ulrich Spörlein wrote:
Hey,
I upgraded a server running 8.x to 9.1 over the weekend and sendmail no
longer wants to bind the AF_INET6 sockets.
So while this still works:
DAEMON_OPTIONS(`Port=smtp,
On Tue, 2013-01-08 at 10:09:20 -0800, Gregory Shapiro wrote:
How can I unstupid sendmail here?
I don't think sendmail is being stupid here as it is doing what it has been
doing under 8.x and 9.1 (the code is the same). I think something changed
with the upgrade to 9.1. As far as
Gregory Shapiro gshap...@freebsd.org wrote
in 20130108180920.gj36...@rugsucker.smi.sendmail.com:
gs How can I unstupid sendmail here?
gs
gs I don't think sendmail is being stupid here as it is doing what it has
gs been doing under 8.x and 9.1 (the code is the same). I think
gs something
Ulrich Spörlein u...@freebsd.org wrote
in 20130108184051.gi35...@acme.spoerlein.net:
uq After setting this, it now looks like this:
uq root@acme: ~# ip6addrctl
uq Prefix Prec Label Use
uq ::1/128 50 00
uq ::/0
21 matches
Mail list logo
