On Tue, Dec 25, 2007 at 02:31:33AM +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2007-12-24 21:48:18 +0000, Colin Watson wrote: > > No idea; I reassigned it in case there was a possible workaround (e.g. > > detecting and discarding the bogus replies). > > In particular if the bug in the router is widespread, a workaround > (if possible[*]) would be a good idea.
any/local-ipv6-lookup, if fixable, would be one such workaround. (See previous glibc changelogs.) > [*] 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, but it might be quite reasonable to have an A record resolve to that IP address for the purpose of naming the network. The resolver isn't in a position to distinguish those cases, IMO. (Besides, who knows whether 1.0.0.0 is the only possible erroneous value for this kind of broken router? Only the vendor, really.) -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
