Bug#789475: udhcpc: valid rfc1123 hostname recognized as "bad"
On Sun, 21 Jun 2015, Geert Stappers wrote:
> Control: tag -1 moreinfo
> On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 02:14:17PM +0200, Bodo Eggert wrote:
> > The valid hostname "52-54-0-12-34-56" is recognized as bad
> > while it should be valid according to rfc1123 (Section 2.1).
> What programma and/or device did recognize "52-54-0-12-34-56" as bad?
udhcpc, which is part of busybox
> How was the error encountered? Any error messages?
The debian installer will use the hostname "bad", because that's what it's
told by udhcpc.
> Please elaborate what the reason for this bugreport is.
busybox/udhcpc should recognize this hostname as being valid since it
conforms to current network standards (I cheked it). The old standard did
disallow a number in the first character.
> > Capture of the DHCP reply:
> > be1.lrz.bootps > 192.168.7.107.bootpc: BOOTP/DHCP, Reply, length 300, xid 0x4cc35164, Flags [none]
> > Vendor-rfc1048 Extensions
> > DHCP-Message Option 53, length 1: ACK
> > Hostname Option 12, length 16: "52-54-0-12-34-56"
> That is content from a network packet sent by a DHCP server,
> which might be configured for providing such hostname.
Yes, that's my dhcp server. I figured knowing the DHCP reply might help.