On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 06:23:56PM -0600, David Wright wrote:
> Yes, that documents what we normally observe as a %eth0 or %1 suffix
> for IPv6 addresses which selects the interface to use. "Requires"
> (unemphasised in the original) mean that it is necessary to identify a
> particular zone, but IM
On Thu 21 Jan 2021 at 08:16:23 (+0100), Marc SCHAEFER wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 08:04:05AM +0100, Marc SCHAEFER wrote:
> > fe80::1 is specifically a link-local scope, a bit like if you try to
> > access a class variable without telling in what class it is.
>
> Reading RFC-4291 [1], 2.5.6 (l
On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 08:04:05AM +0100, Marc SCHAEFER wrote:
> fe80::1 is specifically a link-local scope, a bit like if you try to
> access a class variable without telling in what class it is.
Reading RFC-4291 [1], 2.5.6 (link-local addresses) and RFC-4007 [2] 6,
Zones Indices:
Because the
On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 11:59:46PM -0600, David Wright wrote:
> As far as the address is concerned, fe80::1 is perfectly formed,
> but ambiguous. Is that what your jessie error message used to say?
The error was one of the usual kernel errors (-EINVALID probably), see
below.
Actually, stretch doe
On Wed 20 Jan 2021 at 14:46:31 (+0100), Marc SCHAEFER wrote:
>
> I experiment [experienced] a change of behaviour between the kernel of Debian
> jessie
> and Debian buster.
>
> Namely, before, ping6 fe80::1 would fail, since it is ambiguous (fe80::1
> is a link scope, thus a zone/interface scope
Hello,
I experiment a change of behaviour between the kernel of Debian jessie
and Debian buster.
Namely, before, ping6 fe80::1 would fail, since it is ambiguous (fe80::1
is a link scope, thus a zone/interface scope ID is required).
With buster, it tries the first Ethernet interface, no error (un
6 matches
Mail list logo
