Quoting Jeremy Chadwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On Tue, Mar 04, 2008 at 02:48:31AM -0800, Chris H. wrote:
In long; Both servers have the same (and only) entry:
/etc/defaults/rc.conf: ifconfig_lo0="inet 127.0.0.1"
no more, no less.
The RELENG_6 server reports:
lo0: flags=8049<UP,LOOPBACK,RUNNING,MULTICAST> mtu 16384
inet 127.0.0.1 netmask 0xff000000 inet6 ::1 prefixlen 128
inet6 fe80::1%lo0 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x3
The 7-RC3 did not (I'd provide the output, but I've since added
and activated an entry in /etc/rc.conf that provides a /24 on
lo0). Since I'm only /really/ interested in SWIP'ing 3 IP's out of
the the block 254 will be more than enough.
Okay so it sounds like there's two separate issues here:
1) The issue with rbldnsd not working for you on RELENG_7 (returning
REFUSED and some other oddities),
2) When assigning an IP to lo0 on your RELENG_7 box, the netmask chosen
is 255.255.255.255 (0xffffffff) instead of 255.0.0.0 (0xff000000),
even though for everyone else this isn't happening. :-)
You've made a hackfix for the issue in #2 by explicitly putting the
following line in your /etc/rc.conf:
ifconfig_lo0="inet 127.0.0.1 netmask 255.0.0.0"
Which also appears to resolve issue #1, is that correct?
Yes, adding an entry in /etc/rc.conf that provides 254 IP's now
reveals:
lo0: flags=8049<UP,LOOPBACK,RUNNING,MULTICAST> metric 0 mtu 16384
inet6 ::1 prefixlen 128 inet6 fe80::1%lo0 prefixlen 64
scopeid 0x3 inet 127.0.0.1 netmask 0xffffff00
as opposed to: 0xffffffff.
If that's true, there is greater demons at work here,
LOL. By the time you read this, you will have already read my
/punny/ statement to the same. :)
or something we
aren't being told about the configuration. Again, the IPs in rbldnsd
zone files have nothing to do with IP addresses or netmasks associated
with loopback, so I don't see how changing the netmask would fix that.
It almost sounds as if the rbldnsd software may be written to assume
they're all related, and I sure hope that isn't the case.
No. I'm more inclined, at this state. To think that since the IP
is defined in the zone file. That it requires the /availability/
of the IP so that it can use it - not unlike the BIND. But, it is
not the BIND, so will have it's own (see; different) way of
management regarding IP<-->name, etc...
Anyway, my /real/ reason for starting all this, was to figure out
why the 2 machines act so differently. I can assure you that I
have spent the entire day attempting to figure out if any
difference had crept into any of the server configs. But could
find none.
Thanks again for all your time and effort.
--Chris H
--
| Jeremy Chadwick jdc at parodius.com |
| Parodius Networking http://www.parodius.com/ |
| UNIX Systems Administrator Mountain View, CA, USA |
| Making life hard for others since 1977. PGP: 4BD6C0CB |
_______________________________________________
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
--
panic: kernel trap (ignored)
_______________________________________________
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
