Bug#421375: libc6: "No route to host" does not describe EHOSTUNREACH properly
tag 421375 + wontfix
thanks
On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 01:51:18PM +0200, Bart Dopheide wrote:
> Package: libc6
> Version: 2.3.6.ds1-13
> Severity: minor
>
> IMHO "No route to host" is not a string that covers EHOSTUNREACH
> properly. In common situation it _is_ (that is why no one has complained
> so far I guess), but I run into trouble with ICMP type 3.13 (admin
> prohibited):
>
> # iptables -I INPUT 1 -p tcp --dport 42 -j REJECT --reject-with icmp-admin-prohibited
> # telnet localhost 42
> Trying 127.0.0.1...
> telnet: Unable to connect to remote host: No route to host
>
> Clearly, there is a route to localhost, but perror describes
> EHOSTUNREACH as 'No route to host'. In real life situation, I run into
> trouble with access lists on (Cisco) routers. Testing the connection
> with telnet gives me nothing but a red herring; checking and rechecking
> every route tables on every router, traceroute-ing etc. and then
> discovering with tcpdump that is it in fact admin-prohibited.
>
> Arguably, there is in fact no route, because the 'would-be route' is
> prohibited, but then I say that the host might be reachable on other
> ports, or with other protocols meaning that there _is_ a route
>
> The only suggestion that comes to my mind that covers the charge better,
> is 'Destination unreachable'.
Unfortunately changing such an error message will probably breaks a lot
of scripts. You have to live with it.
Tagging this bug as a wontfix.
--
.''`. Aurelien Jarno | GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73
: :' : Debian developer | Electrical Engineer
`. `' aurel32@debian.org | aurelien@aurel32.net
`- people.debian.org/~aurel32 | www.aurel32.net
Reply to: