Roy Marples wrote:
> And it's now been pulled up to -8.
> Can you test it please and report back if this is fixed now or not please?
It seems to fix it, indeed.
--
Emmanuel Dreyfus
http://hcpnet.free.fr/pubz
m...@netbsd.org
On 13/08/2018 12:28, Roy Marples wrote:
We can pull the latter up to -8 shortly.
And it's now been pulled up to -8.
Can you test it please and report back if this is fixed now or not please?
Thanks
Roy
On 11/08/2018 20:21, Roy Marples wrote:
On 11/08/2018 20:11, Emmanuel Dreyfus wrote:
On Sat, Aug 11, 2018 at 03:40:42PM +0100, Roy Marples wrote:
What is the state of the address as reported by ifconfig(8)?
If it's tentative, duplicated or detatched this is expected behaviour
now.
It is repo
On 11/08/2018 20:11, Emmanuel Dreyfus wrote:
On Sat, Aug 11, 2018 at 03:40:42PM +0100, Roy Marples wrote:
What is the state of the address as reported by ifconfig(8)?
If it's tentative, duplicated or detatched this is expected behaviour now.
It is reported as active.
Can you test rebuilding
On Sat, Aug 11, 2018 at 03:40:42PM +0100, Roy Marples wrote:
> What is the state of the address as reported by ifconfig(8)?
> If it's tentative, duplicated or detatched this is expected behaviour now.
It is reported as active.
--
Emmanuel Dreyfus
m...@netbsd.org
Hi
On 07/08/2018 07:47, Emmanuel Dreyfus wrote:
Another bug I observed with NetBSD 8.0. So far it hapened only to
named, but perhaps it is more genéric.
named is bound to multiple addresses. After some time, it cease to
answer on one of them, while the others keep working. tcdump show
the packe
Emmanuel Dreyfus a écrit :
> Hello
Hello,
> Another bug I observed with NetBSD 8.0. So far it hapened only to
> named, but perhaps it is more genéric.
Very strange. I use a NetBSD server as main router/NFS server/name
server with bind9 and NetBSD 8.0 (build from sources) and I h
