On 14/11/2012 09:59, Joe Holden wrote:
On 14/11/2012 09:35, Andre Oppermann wrote:
On 14.11.2012 08:48, Sean Chittenden wrote:
Regardless, why are you trying to do something that is unsupported
by pretty much every vendor/operator/os?
Status quo is fine and dandy if it's rational, backed up w
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 11:06:04PM -0800, Sean Chittenden wrote:
> Where does it say that it shouldn't be used? Which RFC & ?? There are plenty
> of RFCs and I haven't exhaustively read things, so I reserve the right to be
> wrong & corrected, but I haven't seen anything that says, "do not use
On 14/11/2012 09:35, Andre Oppermann wrote:
On 14.11.2012 08:48, Sean Chittenden wrote:
Regardless, why are you trying to do something that is unsupported
by pretty much every vendor/operator/os?
Status quo is fine and dandy if it's rational, backed up with a
justification and can be understoo
On 14.11.2012 08:48, Sean Chittenden wrote:
Regardless, why are you trying to do something that is unsupported by pretty
much every vendor/operator/os?
Status quo is fine and dandy if it's rational, backed up with a justification
and can be understood, but I'm not seeing anything that suggest
On 14/11/2012 07:48, Sean Chittenden wrote:
Regardless, why are you trying to do something that is unsupported by pretty
much every vendor/operator/os?
Status quo is fine and dandy if it's rational, backed up with a justification
and can be understood, but I'm not seeing anything that suggest
>>> Regardless, why are you trying to do something that is unsupported by
>>> pretty much every vendor/operator/os?
>>
>> Status quo is fine and dandy if it's rational, backed up with a
>> justification and can be understood, but I'm not seeing anything that
>> suggests there's a good reason wh
On 14/11/2012 07:32, Joe Holden wrote:
On 14/11/2012 07:25, Sean Chittenden wrote:
The check to drop ICMP replies to a source of 0.0.0.0/8 was added
in r120958 as part of a fix for link local addresses. It was only
applied to ICMP which is inconsistent as you've found out.
?? Any thoughts as
On 14/11/2012 07:25, Sean Chittenden wrote:
The check to drop ICMP replies to a source of 0.0.0.0/8 was added
in r120958 as part of a fix for link local addresses. It was only
applied to ICMP which is inconsistent as you've found out.
?? Any thoughts as to why? It doesn't appear that the curre
> The check to drop ICMP replies to a source of 0.0.0.0/8 was added
> in r120958 as part of a fix for link local addresses. It was only
> applied to ICMP which is inconsistent as you've found out.
>
>> ?? Any thoughts as to why? It doesn't appear that the current behavior
>>>
On 14/11/2012 07:06, Sean Chittenden wrote:
Hello. I ran in to an interesting situation in what appears to be an exotic
situation. Specifically, after reviewing RFC5735 again and searching for a
datacenter-local or rack-local IP range (i.e trying to provide services that
are guaranteed to be p
Hello. I ran in to an interesting situation in what appears to be an
exotic situation. Specifically, after reviewing RFC5735 again and
searching for a datacenter-local or rack-local IP range (i.e trying to
provide services that are guaranteed to be provided in the same rack a
Sean Chittenden wrote:
Hello. I ran in to an interesting situation in what appears to be an exotic
situation. Specifically, after reviewing RFC5735 again and searching for a
datacenter-local or rack-local IP range (i.e trying to provide services that
are guaranteed to be provided in the same r
>> Hello. I ran in to an interesting situation in what appears to be an exotic
>> situation. Specifically, after reviewing RFC5735 again and searching for a
>> datacenter-local or rack-local IP range (i.e trying to provide services that
>> are guaranteed to be provided in the same rack as the se
On 13.11.2012 08:42, Sean Chittenden wrote:
Hello. I ran in to an interesting situation in what appears to be an exotic
situation. Specifically, after reviewing RFC5735 again and searching for a
datacenter-local or rack-local IP range (i.e trying to provide services that
are guaranteed to be p
Hello. I ran in to an interesting situation in what appears to be an exotic
situation. Specifically, after reviewing RFC5735 again and searching for a
datacenter-local or rack-local IP range (i.e trying to provide services that
are guaranteed to be provided in the same rack as the server), I set
15 matches
Mail list logo
