ping
On 2/17/20 8:19 AM, Martijn van Duren wrote:
> On 2/17/20 8:12 AM, Martijn van Duren wrote:
>> jan@ found some issues with this diff during u2k20.
>> Here's an updated diff. Changes since previous diff are:
>> - If we don't know the protocol yet, we can't assume a port is
>> specified.
>> -
On 2/17/20 8:12 AM, Martijn van Duren wrote:
> jan@ found some issues with this diff during u2k20.
> Here's an updated diff. Changes since previous diff are:
> - If we don't know the protocol yet, we can't assume a port is
> specified.
> - If we can create a ip6? socket don't wait to connect unti
jan@ found some issues with this diff during u2k20.
Here's an updated diff. Changes since previous diff are:
- If we don't know the protocol yet, we can't assume a port is
specified.
- If we can create a ip6? socket don't wait to connect until we're out
of the loop.
It passes everything I've t
So apparently I use IPv6 more often than the end-users.
This diff allows us to actually skip the {ud,tc}p6 prefix if we actually
present an IPv6 address as described in the manpage and done by
net-snmp.
While here I also made it possible possible to do a retry if
IPv6-address:port fails by pastin
