Quoting Greg Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On 2008-03-04, Chris H. wrote:
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 you think the above shows evidence of providing 254 IP addresses,
it's really time either to catch up on some sleep or learn how these
things work.
Quite so. That was my point; adding netmask 255.255.255.0
(0xffffff00) gave me 254 addresses. While the netmask
0xffffffff provides 1.
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.
The fact that you could not find the difference(s) is no evidence that
there are none. It's abundantly clear from this very lengthy and often
almost content-free discussion that you are either so tired and frantic
that your brain has seized up or that you really don't understand this
stuff as well as you think.
(The clear evidence is that you have no idea of the meaning of assigning
and IP address to an interface versus the meaning of an IP address given
as a reply to a name lookup -- yet you continue to insist that you do
have such an understanding.)
If you could give a clear and complete description of what is really
happening, without any of your own theories clouding that description,
somebody clueful might be able to see just what is the obvious factor
you have missed. As things stand, you are just going around in big
unproductive circles and giving the rest of us no useful information to
help you with.
None of the above is intended as a flame, but it's really time to take
stock and make a serious attempt to provide all the data so that those
who can help are able to understand the problem.
Thank you for your tolerance. I'm afraid - to my great embarrassment, that
a 5:30am - 3:30am day ultimately results in NON productivity; in spite of
my instance to close this issue before calling it a day.
In short; Indeed. Your analysis is quite accurate. I'm afraid, after
spending s-o-o-o much time on the issue, I became /quite/ obsessed with
closure that I made a fool of myself here. Please accept my apologies.
In the future, I'll choose a tall Tequila & tonic, and a good nights
sleep - over spamming the list. :)
In short; the title /should/ have read 127.0.0.1/8
In my case; I was working with 2 of my servers -
a RELENG_6, and an 7-RC3.
The RELENG_6
defaulted to 127.0.0.1/8
While the 7-RC3
defaulted to 127.0.0.1/32
There were other peculiarities which I added to the thread that
I thought worth mentioning. But ultimately, only served to cloud
the whole matter.
Thanks again.
--Chris H
I hope
Greg
_______________________________________________
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]"
