Closing remarks and the solution of the problem:
We can conclude that *using 169.254.x.x for routed networks is not in
accordance with standards.*
According to the standards the router shouldn't forward such packages
(from 169.254.x.x network) and even the client shouldn't send such
packages t
On Wed, 10 Dec 2014, Maciej Kotliński wrote:
> Finally I found the easiest and trivial resolution of the problem. You
> just can set scope 0 with ip command.
>
> The interface with address 169.254.x.x gets scope link (253), so the
> packets won't be send outside NAT. Configuring interface with i
Hi,
Please read your previous replies. To repeat:
> 3: eth1: mtu 1500 qdisc pfifo_fast state
> UP group default qlen 1000
> link/ether 52:54:00:91:2b:47 brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
> inet 169.254.100.244/24 brd 169.254.100.255 scope link dynamic eth1
...
W dniu 09.12.2014 o 19:27, Arturo Borrero Gonzalez pisze:
I think in some environments changing the addressing layout is not that simple.
@Maciej, could you post all the network-related config of your failing
machine? I mean: routing, addresses, firewalling, sysctl, IPv6 and
all.
Also, I see y
On Tue, 09 Dec 2014, Maciej Kotliński wrote:
> You don't understand what I mean. The gateway is forwarding packages!
> It is forwarding packages from Windows, Mac, and other Linux boxes
> in 169.254.x.x
The gateway is doing something it was not supposed to do in the first place.
> Debian Jessie b
On 9 December 2014 at 19:12, Anthony F McInerney wrote:
> Those have been the fixes for the usual networking problems that have
> crept up in jessie.
> I concur with Henrique Holschuh's advice, fix the address range.
>
I think in some environments changing the addressing layout is not that simple
Those have been the fixes for the usual networking problems that have
crept up in jessie.
I concur with Henrique Holschuh's advice, fix the address range.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debi
W dniu 09.12.2014 o 17:13, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh pisze:
On Tue, 09 Dec 2014, Maciej Kotliński wrote:
It is possible to ping the gateway and other computers in 169.254.1.0/24
network. The packets are not routed by the nat.
link-local addresses, such as 169.254.0.0/16 are "unroutable". No
Hello, thanks for fast answer and suggestions.
>1) General is the wrong package for this bug. (i assume it's going to
get closed, network-manager or ifupdown are probably a better idea).
I don't know which one and I'm not sure if it is not somethink else. I
haven't found anything like this in b
On Tue, 09 Dec 2014, Maciej Kotliński wrote:
> It is possible to ping the gateway and other computers in 169.254.1.0/24
> network. The packets are not routed by the nat.
link-local addresses, such as 169.254.0.0/16 are "unroutable". No traffic
from/to link-local addresses is allowed to go "throug
On Tue, 09 Dec 2014, Maciej Kotliński wrote:
> I have a NAT-ed network which uses 169.254.1.0/24 range (private/zeroconf
> range). The network has dhcp and gateway (169.254.1.1). From some time
> (probably few months) Debian Jessie is not able to use the gateway.
This was never supposed to work in
1) General is the wrong package for this bug. (i assume it's going to
get closed, network-manager or ifupdown are probably a better idea).
2) Assuming the former is causing the problem (because you have eth0
in /etc/network/interfaces).
FIX 1) Set managed=true in /etc/NetworkManager/NetworkManager.
Package: general
Severity: important
I have a NAT-ed network which uses 169.254.1.0/24 range (private/zeroconf
range). The network has dhcp and gateway (169.254.1.1). From some time
(probably few months) Debian Jessie is not able to use the gateway.
It is possible to ping the gateway and other co
13 matches
Mail list logo
