Closing remarks and the solution of the problem:
We can conclude that *using 169.254.x.x for routed networks is not in
accordance with standards.*
According to the standards the router shouldn't forward such packages
(from 169.254.x.x network) and even the client shouldn't send such
packages t
W dniu 09.12.2014 o 19:27, Arturo Borrero Gonzalez pisze:
I think in some environments changing the addressing layout is not that simple.
@Maciej, could you post all the network-related config of your failing
machine? I mean: routing, addresses, firewalling, sysctl, IPv6 and
all.
Also, I see y
Hello, thanks for fast answer and suggestions.
>1) General is the wrong package for this bug. (i assume it's going to
get closed, network-manager or ifupdown are probably a better idea).
I don't know which one and I'm not sure if it is not somethink else. I
haven't found anything like this in b
W dniu 09.12.2014 o 17:13, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh pisze:
On Tue, 09 Dec 2014, Maciej Kotliński wrote:
It is possible to ping the gateway and other computers in 169.254.1.0/24
network. The packets are not routed by the nat.
link-local addresses, such as 169.254.0.0/16 are "unrou
Package: general
Severity: important
I have a NAT-ed network which uses 169.254.1.0/24 range (private/zeroconf
range). The network has dhcp and gateway (169.254.1.1). From some time
(probably few months) Debian Jessie is not able to use the gateway.
It is possible to ping the gateway and other co
5 matches
Mail list logo
