On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 4:42 PM Florian Haas <florian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 19/11/2019 22:34, Jason Dillaman wrote: > >> Oh totally, I wasn't arguing it was a bad idea for it to do what it > >> does! I just got confused by the fact that our mon logs showed what > >> looked like a (failed) attempt to blacklist an entire client IP address. > > > > There should have been an associated client nonce after the IP address > > to uniquely identify which client connection is blacklisted -- > > something like "1.2.3.4:0/5678". Let me know if that's not the case > > since that would definitely be wrong. > > English lacks a universally understood way to answer a negated question > in the affirmative, so this is tricky to get right, but I'll try: No, > that *is* the case, thus nothing is wrong. :) Haha -- thanks! > Cheers, > Florian > -- Jason _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
 |