Quoting Mark Andrews [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Quoting Mark Andrews [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Quoting Andy Dills [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Mon, 3 Mar 2008, Chris H. wrote:
Are you sure it's a /24 you are talking about? My 7.0 disks install
127.0.0.1/8 here.
Really? Where did you get the
Chris H. wrote:
Greetings,
I'm having some difficulty working with anything past 127.0.0.1.
It seems impossible to use (create) any addresses on the loopback
past 127.0.0.1.
What evidence do you have for this? Show your ifconfig commands, etc.
I use 127/8 addresses all the time without
On Tue, Mar 04, 2008 at 12:03:20AM -0800, Chris H. wrote:
I have absolutely no idea why FBSD v7 (on 2 machines) will only
dole out 127.0.0.1, while all my other servers running RELENG_6 all
dole out a /minimum/ of 127.0.0.1/8 by default. But, having just now
modified the default rc for
Quoting Kris Kennaway [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Chris H. wrote:
Greetings,
I'm having some difficulty working with anything past 127.0.0.1.
It seems impossible to use (create) any addresses on the loopback
past 127.0.0.1.
What evidence do you have for this? Show your ifconfig commands, etc.
On Tue, Mar 04, 2008 at 01:52:46AM -0800, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
If you put a machine on that network as 192.168.1.200, and give it a
netmask of 255.255.255.0, it will respond to any packets destined to
192.168.1.100 (obviously), but will also respond to packets destined to
the broadcast
On Tue, Mar 04, 2008 at 01:52:46AM -0800, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
If you then put another box on the network as 192.168.1.7, and give it a
netmask of 255.255.255.128 (/25), it should not be able to see
192.168.1.200. Broadcast packets from 192.168.1.7 would be going to
192.168.1.128 (its view
On Tue, 2008-03-04 at 00:03 -0800, Chris H. wrote:
Hello Mark. Thank you for your thoughtful reply.
FWIW I'm hosting my own zone, out of my domain's address using a
different host name. I'm simply forwarding the requests to a different
port, so as to prevent port collision with the BIND. The
Quoting Jeremy Chadwick [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Tue, Mar 04, 2008 at 12:03:20AM -0800, Chris H. wrote:
I have absolutely no idea why FBSD v7 (on 2 machines) will only
dole out 127.0.0.1, while all my other servers running RELENG_6 all
dole out a /minimum/ of 127.0.0.1/8 by default. But, having
Quoting Tom Evans [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Tue, 2008-03-04 at 00:03 -0800, Chris H. wrote:
Hello Mark. Thank you for your thoughtful reply.
FWIW I'm hosting my own zone, out of my domain's address using a
different host name. I'm simply forwarding the requests to a different
port, so as to
On Tue, Mar 04, 2008 at 02:23:21AM -0800, Chris H. wrote:
What I am having absolutely no understanding of; is why do
2 FBSD servers sharing the same setups, and the same stock
lo0 setups react /completely/ differently than each other,
when the only difference is the version of FBSD, and the
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=8049UP,LOOPBACK,RUNNING,MULTICAST mtu 16384
inet 127.0.0.1
Quoting Jeremy Chadwick [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Tue, Mar 04, 2008 at 02:23:21AM -0800, Chris H. wrote:
What I am having absolutely no understanding of; is why do
2 FBSD servers sharing the same setups, and the same stock
lo0 setups react /completely/ differently than each other,
when the only
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:
Chris H. [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yes, adding an entry in /etc/rc.conf that provides 254 IP's now
reveals:
lo0: flags=8049UP,LOOPBACK,RUNNING,MULTICAST metric 0 mtu 16384
inet6 ::1 prefixlen 128inet6 fe80::1%lo0 prefixlen 64
scopeid 0x3inet 127.0.0.1 netmask
On 2008-03-04, Chris H. wrote:
Yes, adding an entry in /etc/rc.conf that provides 254 IP's now
reveals:
lo0: flags=8049UP,LOOPBACK,RUNNING,MULTICAST metric 0 mtu 16384
inet6 ::1 prefixlen 128inet6 fe80::1%lo0 prefixlen 64
scopeid 0x3inet 127.0.0.1 netmask 0xff00
On Tue, Mar 04, 2008 at 03:22:00AM -0800, Chris H. wrote:
No. It's not a matter of holding back. I really don't want to spam
the stable list with ports litter. My main concern/question was in
figuring out why 2 identical server configs would react so differently
in the way they handle lo0 and
Quoting Lowell Gilbert [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Chris H. [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yes, adding an entry in /etc/rc.conf that provides 254 IP's now
reveals:
lo0: flags=8049UP,LOOPBACK,RUNNING,MULTICAST metric 0 mtu 16384
inet6 ::1 prefixlen 128inet6 fe80::1%lo0 prefixlen 64
scopeid
Quoting Chris H. [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Quoting Lowell Gilbert [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Chris H. [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yes, adding an entry in /etc/rc.conf that provides 254 IP's now
reveals:
lo0: flags=8049UP,LOOPBACK,RUNNING,MULTICAST metric 0 mtu 16384
inet6 ::1 prefixlen 128
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=8049UP,LOOPBACK,RUNNING,MULTICAST metric 0 mtu 16384
inet6 ::1 prefixlen 128inet6 fe80::1%lo0 prefixlen 64
scopeid 0x3
Just to provide a little information in case there is still confusion...
On Tue, 4 Mar 2008, Chris H. wrote:
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:
Greetings,
I'm having some difficulty working with anything past 127.0.0.1.
It seems impossible to use (create) any addresses on the loopback
past 127.0.0.1.
More specifically; I installed rbldnsd from ports, and it worked quite
well on a 6.x install. However, attempting the same config/install
On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 05:43:35PM -0800, Chris H. wrote:
Greetings,
I'm having some difficulty working with anything past 127.0.0.1.
It seems impossible to use (create) any addresses on the loopback
past 127.0.0.1.
More specifically; I installed rbldnsd from ports, and it worked quite
well
On Mon, 3 Mar 2008, Chris H. wrote:
Greetings,
I'm having some difficulty working with anything past 127.0.0.1.
It seems impossible to use (create) any addresses on the loopback
past 127.0.0.1.
More specifically; I installed rbldnsd from ports, and it worked quite
well on a 6.x install.
Hello Jeremy, and thank you for your reply.
Quoting Jeremy Chadwick [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 05:43:35PM -0800, Chris H. wrote:
Greetings,
I'm having some difficulty working with anything past 127.0.0.1.
It seems impossible to use (create) any addresses on the loopback
past
Quoting Andy Dills [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Mon, 3 Mar 2008, Chris H. wrote:
Greetings,
I'm having some difficulty working with anything past 127.0.0.1.
It seems impossible to use (create) any addresses on the loopback
past 127.0.0.1.
More specifically; I installed rbldnsd from ports, and it
On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 07:23:59PM -0800, Chris H. wrote:
Quoting Andy Dills [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Mon, 3 Mar 2008, Chris H. wrote:
Greetings,
I'm having some difficulty working with anything past 127.0.0.1.
It seems impossible to use (create) any addresses on the loopback
past
Quoting Royce Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Jeremy Chadwick wrote, on 3/3/2008 5:21 PM:
On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 05:43:35PM -0800, Chris H. wrote:
I've looked at this software: http://www.corpit.ru/mjt/rbldnsd.html
Why exactly do you need this software to bind to 127.0.0.2 or 127.0.0.3?
I don't
Jeremy Chadwick wrote, on 3/3/2008 5:21 PM:
On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 05:43:35PM -0800, Chris H. wrote:
I've looked at this software: http://www.corpit.ru/mjt/rbldnsd.html
Why exactly do you need this software to bind to 127.0.0.2 or 127.0.0.3?
I don't see any indication of it needing that.
Hello Jeremy, and thank you for your reply.
Quoting Jeremy Chadwick [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 05:43:35PM -0800, Chris H. wrote:
Greetings,
I'm having some difficulty working with anything past 127.0.0.1.
It seems impossible to use (create) any addresses on the
On Tue, Mar 04, 2008 at 02:29:20PM +1100, Edwin Groothuis wrote:
Are you sure it's a /24 you are talking about? My 7.0 disks install
127.0.0.1/8 here.
Ditto. And our RELENG_6 production servers are the same.
--
| Jeremy Chadwickjdc at parodius.com |
|
Quoting Edwin Groothuis [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 07:23:59PM -0800, Chris H. wrote:
Quoting Andy Dills [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Mon, 3 Mar 2008, Chris H. wrote:
Greetings,
I'm having some difficulty working with anything past 127.0.0.1.
It seems impossible to use (create) any
Quoting Royce Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Jeremy Chadwick wrote, on 3/3/2008 5:21 PM:
On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 05:43:35PM -0800, Chris H. wrote:
I've looked at this software: http://www.corpit.ru/mjt/rbldnsd.html
Why exactly do you need this software to bind to 127.0.0.2 or 127.0.0.3?
On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 07:39:44PM -0800, Chris H. wrote:
Quoting Edwin Groothuis [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 07:23:59PM -0800, Chris H. wrote:
Quoting Andy Dills [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Mon, 3 Mar 2008, Chris H. wrote:
Greetings,
I'm having some difficulty working with
On Mon, 3 Mar 2008, Chris H. wrote:
Are you sure it's a /24 you are talking about? My 7.0 disks install
127.0.0.1/8 here.
Really? Where did you get the install disc? Mine clearly doesn't. :(
All I am provided is 127.0.0.1 - not 127.0.0.2,3...
127.0.0.1/8 just means 127.0.0.1 with a
Quoting Andy Dills [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Mon, 3 Mar 2008, Chris H. wrote:
Are you sure it's a /24 you are talking about? My 7.0 disks install
127.0.0.1/8 here.
Really? Where did you get the install disc? Mine clearly doesn't. :(
All I am provided is 127.0.0.1 - not 127.0.0.2,3...
Quoting Mark Andrews [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Quoting Andy Dills [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Mon, 3 Mar 2008, Chris H. wrote:
Are you sure it's a /24 you are talking about? My 7.0 disks install
127.0.0.1/8 here.
Really? Where did you get the install disc? Mine clearly doesn't. :(
All I am
Quoting Mark Andrews [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hello Jeremy, and thank you for your reply.
Quoting Jeremy Chadwick [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 05:43:35PM -0800, Chris H. wrote:
Greetings,
I'm having some difficulty working with anything past 127.0.0.1.
It seems impossible to use
Quoting Andy Dills [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Mon, 3 Mar 2008, Chris H. wrote:
Are you sure it's a /24 you are talking about? My 7.0 disks install
127.0.0.1/8 here.
Really? Where did you get the install disc? Mine clearly doesn't. :(
All I am provided is 127.0.0.1 - not
Quoting Mark Andrews [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Quoting Andy Dills [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Mon, 3 Mar 2008, Chris H. wrote:
Are you sure it's a /24 you are talking about? My 7.0 disks install
127.0.0.1/8 here.
Really? Where did you get the install disc? Mine clearly doesn't. :(
39 matches
Mail list logo
