From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6B10B63B37 for ; Wed, 25 Nov 2020 12:52:00 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 61B9B1941C for ; Wed, 25 Nov 2020 12:52:00 +0100 (CET) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com [212.186.127.180]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id EA7D319412 for ; Wed, 25 Nov 2020 12:51:59 +0100 (CET) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id B1E5B43B7C for ; Wed, 25 Nov 2020 12:51:59 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2020 12:51:47 +0100 (CET) From: Wolfgang Bumiller To: Dietmar Maurer , Proxmox VE development discussion Message-ID: <810836939.438.1606305107732@webmail.proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <307314515.437.1606304361026@webmail.proxmox.com> References: <20201125103643.26978-1-w.bumiller@proxmox.com> <261268061.433.1606302520485@webmail.proxmox.com> <1883887326.435.1606303343832@webmail.proxmox.com> <2084384783.436.1606304071084@webmail.proxmox.com> <307314515.437.1606304361026@webmail.proxmox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Priority: 3 Importance: Normal X-Mailer: Open-Xchange Mailer v7.10.4-Rev13 X-Originating-Client: open-xchange-appsuite X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.021 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED -2.3 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, medium trust SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [jsonschema.pm] Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH v3 manager] ad #3140: allow interface suffix in dns entries X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2020 11:52:00 -0000 What text do you mean exactly? The interface name? Arbitrary null-terminated byte string... (Yes I can name an interface "---" or =F0=9F=92=A9 (poop-emoji)..., neither of which our iface schema in JSONSchema.pm would allow...) > On 11/25/2020 12:39 PM Dietmar Maurer wrote: >=20 > =20 > Thanks for the info. But what encoding does that text use? I cannot find = that in RFC4007 (they only > talk about strings and text). >=20 > > > Answering myself, it is defined in RFC4007. > > >=20 > > > But "man resolv.conf" say address must be RFC2373 ? > >=20 > > It'll still work. It's a very common notation for link local addresses, > > since with multiple interfaces you have multiple routes with the exact > > same prefix (including length). One `fe80::/64 dev ` entry for > > every ipv6 enabled interface, so things such as `ping fe80::1` don't > > know what to do, so you need to either add `-I IFACE` or use > > `fe80::1%IFACE`. > >=20 > > `getaddrinfo()` also generally supports it, so any application using > > it properly will work fine with this. > > (eg. `ssh foo@fe80::1%eth0` works)