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
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
* 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 reasona
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 b
On Tue, Dec 25, 2007 at 02:31:33AM +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2007-12-24 21:48:18 +, 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,
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 s
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 right, and it doesn't sound like
> OpenSSH is the appropriate place
reassign 457472 glibc
thanks
On Mon, Dec 24, 2007 at 01:35:08AM +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2007-12-22 17:57:46 +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > It seems that Iceweasel has the same problem, as I get a timeout for
> > some web sites. But I'm not 100% sure as Iceweasel doesn't display
> > t
On 2007-12-22 17:57:46 +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> It seems that Iceweasel has the same problem, as I get a timeout for
> some web sites. But I'm not 100% sure as Iceweasel doesn't display
> the IP address. And similarly, after using lynx (without any problem)
> on the same web site, Iceweasel
On 2007-12-22 17:24:21 +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> ssh resolves some hosts to 1.0.0.0.
It seems that Iceweasel has the same problem, as I get a timeout for
some web sites. But I'm not 100% sure as Iceweasel doesn't display
the IP address. And similarly, after using lynx (without any problem)
o
Package: openssh-client
Version: 1:4.6p1-7
Severity: normal
ssh resolves some hosts to 1.0.0.0. For instance, with the -v option,
I get:
debug1: Connecting to ssh.ens-lyon.fr [1.0.0.0] port 22.
debug1: Connecting to login.medicis.polytechnique.fr [1.0.0.0] port 22.
However, if I first try some
11 matches
Mail list logo
