On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 01:10:05PM -0700, J.C. Cleaver wrote:
> On Tue, May 12, 2015 1:41 am, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 10:34:28AM +0200, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos wrote:
> >> On Tue, 2015-05-12 at 09:04 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> >> > > While working for an update
On Tue, May 12, 2015 1:41 am, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 10:34:28AM +0200, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos wrote:
>> On Tue, 2015-05-12 at 09:04 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>> > > While working for an updated ipcalc to support ipv6 transparently, I
>> > > figured we have more
Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 09:56:45AM +0200, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos wrote:
While working for an updated ipcalc to support ipv6 transparently, I
figured we have more tools which are not IPv6-ready and awkwardly
provide an additional tool with a -6 suffix, supposedly for se
On Tue, 2015-05-12 at 09:56 +0200, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos wrote:
> While working for an updated ipcalc to support ipv6 transparently, I
> figured we have more tools which are not IPv6-ready and awkwardly
> provide an additional tool with a -6 suffix, supposedly for separate
> IPv6 support. That lo
> While working for an updated ipcalc to support ipv6 transparently, I
> figured we have more tools which are not IPv6-ready and awkwardly
> provide an additional tool with a -6 suffix, supposedly for separate
> IPv6 support. That looks like a relic of the past, we still drag. IPv6
> support should
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 10:34:28AM +0200, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-05-12 at 09:04 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > > While working for an updated ipcalc to support ipv6 transparently, I
> > > figured we have more tools which are not IPv6-ready and awkwardly
> > > provide an
On Tue, 2015-05-12 at 09:04 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > While working for an updated ipcalc to support ipv6 transparently, I
> > figured we have more tools which are not IPv6-ready and awkwardly
> > provide an additional tool with a -6 suffix, supposedly for separate
> > IPv6 support. That
On 12/05/15 09:07, Tom Hughes wrote:
Isn't that an issue for the upstream of each tool? It's hardly something
that can be addressed at the Fedora level. The relevant upstreams seem
to be:
ping, tracepath - https://github.com/iputils/iputils
traceroute - http://traceroute.sourceforge.net
On 12/05/15 08:56, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos wrote:
While working for an updated ipcalc to support ipv6 transparently, I
figured we have more tools which are not IPv6-ready and awkwardly
provide an additional tool with a -6 suffix, supposedly for separate
IPv6 support. That looks like a relic of t
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 09:56:45AM +0200, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos wrote:
> While working for an updated ipcalc to support ipv6 transparently, I
> figured we have more tools which are not IPv6-ready and awkwardly
> provide an additional tool with a -6 suffix, supposedly for separate
> IPv6 support.
While working for an updated ipcalc to support ipv6 transparently, I
figured we have more tools which are not IPv6-ready and awkwardly
provide an additional tool with a -6 suffix, supposedly for separate
IPv6 support. That looks like a relic of the past, we still drag. IPv6
support should be transp
11 matches
Mail list logo
