On 01/08/2013 23:33, Hiroki Sato wrote:
Ulrich Spörlein wrote
in <20130108184051.gi35...@acme.spoerlein.net>:
uq> After setting this, it now looks like this:
uq> root@acme: ~# ip6addrctl
uq> Prefix Prec Label Use
uq> ::1/128 50 0
Hi,
> On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 07:33:54 +0900 (JST)
> Hiroki Sato said:
hrs> I think this just hides the problem. If gshapiro@'s explanation is
hrs> correct, no :::0.0.0.0/96 address should be returned if the name
hrs> resolution works fine...
I changed getipnodebyname to obey ip6add
On Wed, 2013-01-09 at 14:14:18 +0100, Michiel Boland wrote:
> On 01/08/2013 23:33, Hiroki Sato wrote:
> > Ulrich Spörlein wrote
> >in <20130108184051.gi35...@acme.spoerlein.net>:
> >
> > uq> After setting this, it now looks like this:
> > uq> root@acme: ~# ip6addrctl
> > uq> Prefix
Ulrich Spörlein wrote
in <20130109142111.gl35...@acme.spoerlein.net>:
uq> On Wed, 2013-01-09 at 14:14:18 +0100, Michiel Boland wrote:
uq> > On 01/08/2013 23:33, Hiroki Sato wrote:
uq> > > Ulrich Spörlein wrote
uq> > >in <20130108184051.gi35...@acme.spoerlein.net>:
uq> > >
uq> > > uq> After
Hi,
> On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 23:42:10 +0900 (JST)
> Hiroki Sato said:
hrs> This is because the prefix on the interface has the first priority.
hrs> Why don't you use an fe80::/10 address to route packets to the other
hrs> endpoint of tun0?
I don't like this policy. I think it reduce th
Hi,
> On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 23:01:52 +0900
> Hajimu UMEMOTO said:
ume> I changed getipnodebyname to obey ip6addrctl in years past. I read
ume> RFC 2553 again, and realize that it mentions IPv6 addresses are
ume> returned 1st. So, my past change might be bad thing. X-(
I've just committe
Quoth Hiroki Sato :
> Gregory Shapiro wrote
> in <20130108180920.gj36...@rugsucker.smi.sendmail.com>:
>
> gs> > How can I unstupid sendmail here?
> gs>
> gs> I don't think sendmail is being stupid here as it is doing what it has
> gs> been doing under 8.x and 9.1 (the code is the same). I thin
Quoth Hajimu UMEMOTO :
> > On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 23:01:52 +0900
> > Hajimu UMEMOTO said:
>
> ume> I changed getipnodebyname to obey ip6addrctl in years past. I read
> ume> RFC 2553 again, and realize that it mentions IPv6 addresses are
> ume> returned 1st. So, my past change might be bad
Ben Morrow wrote
in <20130109154435.ga81...@anubis.morrow.me.uk>:
be> So getipnodebyname is behaving correctly here: the host has both IPv4
be> and IPv6 addresses, and Sendmail is requesting both native and v4-mapped
be> addresses be returned in all cases. The v4-mapped addresses are then
be> s
Hi,
> On Wed, 9 Jan 2013 16:29:00 +
> Ben Morrow said:
ben> Where does it say that? All I can find (but I might be being stupid) is
ben> the bit in the description of AI_ALL where it says 'A query is first
ben> made for records and if successful, the IPv6 addresses are
ben> retu
On Wed, 2013-01-09 at 23:42:10 +0900, Hiroki Sato wrote:
> Ulrich Spörlein wrote
> in <20130109142111.gl35...@acme.spoerlein.net>:
>
> > On Wed, 2013-01-09 at 14:14:18 +0100, Michiel Boland wrote:
> > > On 01/08/2013 23:33, Hiroki Sato wrote:
> > > > Ulrich Spörlein wrote
> > > >in <201301
On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 08:03:38PM +, Po-Li Soong wrote:
> Hi,
>
> My name is Po-Li Soong. I ran into a crash not long after installing the 9.1
> release on my home machine. I was performing a test run of file transfer with
> samba server running on the FreeBSD installation. The transfer rat
Quoth Hajimu UMEMOTO :
> Hi,
>
> > On Wed, 9 Jan 2013 16:29:00 +
> > Ben Morrow said:
>
> ben> Where does it say that? All I can find (but I might be being stupid) is
> ben> the bit in the description of AI_ALL where it says 'A query is first
> ben> made for records and if succe
In message <20130110002257.ga84...@anubis.morrow.me.uk>, Ben Morrow writes:
> Yeah; I agree that the v4-mapped option is pretty useless (even when
> using a stack which supports it). I suspect the IETF people were trying
> too hard to account for the case of a v6-only stack talking to the v4
> Int
14 matches
Mail list logo
