[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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 > 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.

Reply to: