Bug#789475: udhcpc: valid rfc1123 hostname recognized as "bad"
On Sun, 21 Jun 2015 19:55:50 +0200 (CEST) Bodo Eggert <7eggert@online.de> wrote:
> 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.
>
>
Hello,
I believe the fix is available upstream in the patch I reference in the
following bug report:
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=794049
I'm not sure this is a duplicate bug of this one, I didn't try with a
hostname.
--
\o/ Arthur
G Gandi.net
Reply to: