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: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 19:23:21 +0000
Message-id: <[🔎] 18372.26409.425413.713521@davenant.relativity.greenend.org.uk>
Mail-followup-to: debian-ctte@lists.debian.org
In-reply-to: <[🔎] 47C3F4BE.7050204@aurel32.net>
References: <20080114200622.GA21602@roeckx.be> <[🔎] 20080212220648.GA2098@hall.aurel32.net> <[🔎] 18367.15389.858802.485404@davenant.relativity.greenend.org.uk> <[🔎] 20080223073140.GA12250@volta.aurel32.net> <[🔎] 18369.27848.130109.679224@davenant.relativity.greenend.org.uk> <[🔎] 47C3F4BE.7050204@aurel32.net>

Aurelien Jarno writes ("Re: RFC3484 rule 9 active again in glibc 2.7-5."):
> IP on different subnet are not sorted, IP on some local subnet are
> sorted by a longer common prefix with the interface address.

Err, pardon my language, but WTF ?!

What on earth is the justification for that ?

Ian.

Reply to:

References:
- Re: RFC3484 rule 9 active again in glibc 2.7-5.
  - From: Aurelien Jarno <aurelien@aurel32.net>
- Re: RFC3484 rule 9 active again in glibc 2.7-5.
  - From: Ian Jackson <ian@davenant.greenend.org.uk>
- Re: RFC3484 rule 9 active again in glibc 2.7-5.
  - From: Aurelien Jarno <aurelien@aurel32.net>
- Re: RFC3484 rule 9 active again in glibc 2.7-5.
  - From: Ian Jackson <ian@davenant.greenend.org.uk>
- Re: RFC3484 rule 9 active again in glibc 2.7-5.
  - From: Aurelien Jarno <aurelien@aurel32.net>

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