Re: RFC3484 rule 9 active again in glibc 2.7-5.

To: Aurelien Jarno <aurelien@aurel32.net>
Cc: Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org>, Kurt Roeckx <kurt@roeckx.be>, 438179@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: RFC3484 rule 9 active again in glibc 2.7-5.
From: Ian Jackson <ian@davenant.greenend.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 21:18:21 +0000
Message-id: <[🔎] 18367.15389.858802.485404@davenant.relativity.greenend.org.uk>
Mail-followup-to: debian-ctte@lists.debian.org
In-reply-to: <[🔎] 20080212220648.GA2098@hall.aurel32.net>
References: <20080114200622.GA21602@roeckx.be> <[🔎] 20080212220648.GA2098@hall.aurel32.net>

Aurelien Jarno writes ("Re: RFC3484 rule 9 active again in glibc 2.7-5."):
> Upstream has committed a fix in the CVS (without telling anybody) so
> that for IPv4 addresses rule 9 is only applied when source and
> destination addresses are in the same subnet. I guess this is very close
> to the wanted behaviour reported in this bug log, so I am reassigning the
> bug back to the libc6 package. It will be closed by the next upload.

I see.  Thanks for letting us know.

What does `in the same subnet' mean ?

Ian.

Reply to:

Follow-Ups:
- Re: RFC3484 rule 9 active again in glibc 2.7-5.
  - From: Aurelien Jarno <aurelien@aurel32.net>

References:
- Re: RFC3484 rule 9 active again in glibc 2.7-5.
  - From: Aurelien Jarno <aurelien@aurel32.net>

Prev by Date: Processed: Re: RFC3484 rule 9 active again in glibc 2.7-5.
Next by Date: Re: RFC3484 rule 9 active again in glibc 2.7-5.
Previous by thread: Processed: Re: RFC3484 rule 9 active again in glibc 2.7-5.
Next by thread: Re: RFC3484 rule 9 active again in glibc 2.7-5.
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread