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. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
