Op 8 aug. 2013 17:49 schreef Tom H tomh0...@gmail.com het volgende:
The output below is from Debian Sid with libnss-myhostname installed [...]
[root@debdeb:/etc]# cat hostname
debdeb
[root@debdeb:/etc]# cat hosts
127.0.0.1 localhost
[root@debdeb:/etc]# getent hosts 127.0.1.1
192.168.1.250
On Mon, 5 Aug 2013 13:08:28 -0400, Thomas Hood wrote:
(I had an exchange of emails with Thomas off-list and he suggested that
I reply on-list.)
With the nsswitch configuration
hosts: files ... dns ... myhostname
myhostname resolves the system hostname if nothing else does so
first. So
On 05-08-13 19:08, Thomas Hood wrote:
Wouter Verhelst wrote:
The right way, in my opinion, is that /etc/hosts should
look like this:
127.0.0.1 localhost
127.0.0.1 hostname.domain hostname
Strictly speaking there should be no more than one line per
IP address, so that would be
In
Wouter Verhelst wou...@debian.org writes:
On 05-08-13 19:08, Thomas Hood wrote:
In that case 'hostname.domain' is the canonical name for alias
'localhost'.
Which is fine. localhost is *supposed* to be an alias, it is not a
canonical name (there are far too many machines called localhost for
On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 10:29:01AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
I think RFC 1912 is interesting here:
The localhost address is a special address which always refers to
the local host. It should contain the following line:
localhost. IN A 127.0.0.1
RFC 6761
Op 7 aug. 2013 10:33 schreef Wouter Verhelst wou...@debian.org het
volgende:
Historically, localhost has always been 127.0.0.1. It feels wrong to
change that, simply because localhost starts showing up in places it
was never meant to show up in.
To clarify, no one is proposing that 'localhost'
Sorry I'm a bit late contributing to this discussion.
Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
The eventual result[1] was that Debian nowadays ships
/etc/hosts like these per default:
127.0.0.1 localhost
127.0.1.1 host_name.domain_name host_name
As also described in the Debian reference[2].
That's
On 2013-07-31 21:01:21 +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
On 07/31/2013 06:47 PM, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
But this wouldn't necessarily solve the mentioned problem
anyway.
I'm not sure there's a problem anyway. I'm on the side of Steve, which
is I think the current setup works quite well.
I
]] Russ Allbery
Matt Zagrabelny mzagr...@d.umn.edu writes:
Does not the Wheezy installer still place hostname.domain.name entries
in /etc/hosts for said hostname?
We (Stanford) strip them out in FAI. We can, of course, continue to do
that, but I thought I'd mention it as a data
On 07/31/2013 08:30 AM, Steve Langasek wrote:
What I'm missing your email is a problem statement explaining what it is
you're trying to solve. The current implementation has been working
reliably for years.
He did wrote it. 127.0.1.1 breaks because some daemon (many, according
to him) bind
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 03:46:29PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
On 07/31/2013 08:30 AM, Steve Langasek wrote:
What I'm missing your email is a problem statement explaining what it is
you're trying to solve. The current implementation has been working
reliably for years.
He did wrote it.
On Wed, 2013-07-31 at 15:46 +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
On 07/31/2013 08:30 AM, Steve Langasek wrote:
What I'm missing your email is a problem statement explaining what it is
you're trying to solve. The current implementation has been working
reliably for years.
He did wrote it.
❦ 31 juillet 2013 09:46 CEST, Thomas Goirand z...@debian.org :
What I'm missing your email is a problem statement explaining what it is
you're trying to solve. The current implementation has been working
reliably for years.
He did wrote it. 127.0.1.1 breaks because some daemon (many,
On 2013-07-31 15:46:29 +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
On 07/31/2013 08:30 AM, Steve Langasek wrote:
What I'm missing your email is a problem statement explaining what it is
you're trying to solve. The current implementation has been working
reliably for years.
He did wrote it. 127.0.1.1
On 2013-07-31 11:00:24 +0200, Vincent Bernat wrote:
❦ 31 juillet 2013 09:46 CEST, Thomas Goirand z...@debian.org :
He did wrote it. 127.0.1.1 breaks because some daemon (many, according
to him) bind only on 127.0.0.1, and not 127.0.0.0/8 as they should.
How a daemon could bind to
On Tue, 2013-07-30 at 23:09 +0100, Ulrich Dangel wrote:
If you are in a situation with no stable DNS you can use
libnss-myhostname which resolves the hostname to your local configured
IP addresses or 127.0.1.1 ::1 if no IP address is configured.
Yeah... but this doesn't change the problem that
On Wed, 2013-07-31 at 01:30 +0100, Steve Langasek wrote:
What I'm missing your email is a problem statement explaining what it is
you're trying to solve. The current implementation has been working
reliably for years. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
You even extracted it yourself from my
On Wed, 2013-07-31 at 12:47 +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
Perhaps Thomas actually meant accept any address, then drop those
outside 127.0.0.0/8?
That seems really ugly and error prone IMHO.
Cheers,
Chris.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
On 07/31/2013 06:47 PM, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
On 2013-07-31 11:00:24 +0200, Vincent Bernat wrote:
❦ 31 juillet 2013 09:46 CEST, Thomas Goirand z...@debian.org :
He did wrote it. 127.0.1.1 breaks because some daemon (many, according
to him) bind only on 127.0.0.1, and not 127.0.0.0/8 as they
On Tue, 2013-07-30 at 23:15 +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
libnss-myhostname is basically this, and is packaged. It tries to return
a public address if possible, only falling back to 127.0.0.2 (upstream),
127.0.1.1 (as patched in Debian) or ::1 (IPv6) if there's nothing more
suitable.
Sounds
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 3:01 PM, Thomas Goirand z...@debian.org wrote:
On 07/31/2013 06:47 PM, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
On 2013-07-31 11:00:24 +0200, Vincent Bernat wrote:
❦ 31 juillet 2013 09:46 CEST, Thomas Goirand z...@debian.org :
He did wrote it. 127.0.1.1 breaks because some daemon (many,
On 30-07-13 22:57, Russ Allbery wrote:
Christoph Anton Mitterer cales...@scientia.net writes:
- The system hostname (and domainname if any) should ALWAYS be
resolvable, whether a network is up or not, regardless of which.
(Assuming that lo is always up, if not, many things break anyway.)
On Wed, 2013-07-31 at 01:30 +0100, Steve Langasek wrote:
That's correct. If you want to talk to a loopback-only service,
you should be connecting to 'localhost', *not* to the hostname.
[Christoph Anton Mitterer]
Well why not? Imagine that one server in a cluster serves a debian
package
Hi.
Somme years ago Thomas Hood started a discussion[0] about how the system
hostname should be resolved.
The eventual result[1] was that Debian nowadays ships /etc/hosts like
these per default:
127.0.0.1 localhost
127.0.1.1 host_name.domain_name host_name
As also described in the Debian
Christoph Anton Mitterer cales...@scientia.net writes:
- The system hostname (and domainname if any) should ALWAYS be
resolvable, whether a network is up or not, regardless of which.
(Assuming that lo is always up, if not, many things break anyway.)
This principal (and the general UNIX
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 3:57 PM, Russ Allbery r...@debian.org wrote:
Christoph Anton Mitterer cales...@scientia.net writes:
- The system hostname (and domainname if any) should ALWAYS be
resolvable, whether a network is up or not, regardless of which.
(Assuming that lo is always up, if not,
Matt Zagrabelny mzagr...@d.umn.edu writes:
Does not the Wheezy installer still place hostname.domain.name entries
in /etc/hosts for said hostname?
We (Stanford) strip them out in FAI. We can, of course, continue to do
that, but I thought I'd mention it as a data point. If you have stable
On Tue, 2013-07-30 at 14:25 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
We (Stanford) strip them out in FAI. We can, of course, continue to do
that, but I thought I'd mention it as a data point. If you have stable
DNS, you really don't want to have another shadow source of IP to host
mapping on local disk;
Christoph Anton Mitterer cales...@scientia.net writes:
On Tue, 2013-07-30 at 14:25 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
We (Stanford) strip them out in FAI. We can, of course, continue to do
that, but I thought I'd mention it as a data point. If you have stable
DNS, you really don't want to have
On 30/07/13 21:43, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
- Back then, Thomas pointed out several ides on who the resolution could
be done (e.g. with a small nsswitch module)
libnss-myhostname is basically this, and is packaged. It tries to return
a public address if possible, only falling back to
* Russ Allbery wrote [30.07.13 22:25]:
We (Stanford) strip them out in FAI. We can, of course, continue to do
that, but I thought I'd mention it as a data point. If you have stable
DNS, you really don't want to have another shadow source of IP to host
mapping on local disk; it's almost
On 30/07/13 22:54, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
Consider an application which only accept packets originating from
hostname as a security measure..
If you only want to accept packets from yourself, use 127.0.0.1 (or ::1,
or a Unix socket). Anything else has more possible failure modes.
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 10:43:44PM +0200, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
Somme years ago Thomas Hood started a discussion[0] about how the system
hostname should be resolved.
The eventual result[1] was that Debian nowadays ships /etc/hosts like
these per default:
127.0.0.1 localhost
Simon McVittie wrote:
On 30/07/13 21:43, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
- Back then, Thomas pointed out several ides on who the resolution could
be done (e.g. with a small nsswitch module)
libnss-myhostname is basically this, and is packaged. It tries to return
a public address if
34 matches
Mail list logo
