From jpopelka@redhat.com Fri Jan 30 14:20:25 2015 X-Scanned-BY: MIMEDefang 2.68 on 10.5.11.23 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 X-RT-Interface: API References: <54357310.1070005@redhat.com> <54CB63AA.9050103@redhat.com> Message-ID: <54CB9324.7020207@redhat.com> content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed" X-RT-Original-Encoding: utf-8 Received: from mx.ams1.isc.org (mx.ams1.isc.org [199.6.1.65]) by bugs.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 883A371B680 for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2015 14:20:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "mx1.redhat.com", Issuer "DigiCert SHA2 Extended Validation Server CA" (not verified)) by mx.ams1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4BF6A1FCACF for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2015 14:20:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t0UEKLKn005177 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2015 09:20:21 -0500 Received: from zepelin.brq.redhat.com (zepelin.brq.redhat.com [10.34.4.75]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t0UEKKDw019284 for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2015 09:20:21 -0500 Delivered-To: dhcp-bugs@bugs.isc.org Subject: Re: [ISC-Bugs #37415] dhcpd generates spurious responses when seeing requests from vlans on plain interface User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dhcp-bugs@bugs.isc.org Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2015 15:20:20 +0100 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on mx.ams1.isc.org To: dhcp-bugs@isc.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Jiri Popelka" RT-Message-ID: Content-Length: 269 On 01/30/2015 03:10 PM, Thomas Markwalder via RT wrote: > Actually it isn't that the patch broke dhcrelay, rather it makes dhcrelay behave exactly as its man page states: Thank you very much for such a quick response, it's really appreciated. With regards, -- Jiri