Re: 127.0.0.53 question

On 12/17/22 17:48, Sam Varshavchik wrote: ToddAndMargo via users writes: All this silliness started as of Fedora Core 37. There were no issues with 36. How certain are you that you had systemd-resolved installed in 36, and it didn't get pulled in during the upgrade to 37? This particular r

Re: 127.0.0.53 question

ToddAndMargo via users writes: All this silliness started as of Fedora Core 37. There were no issues with 36. How certain are you that you had systemd-resolved installed in 36, and it didn't get pulled in during the upgrade to 37? This particular rpm package has a tendency to get pulled in

Re: 127.0.0.53 question

On Sat, 2022-12-17 at 10:51 -0800, Samuel Sieb wrote: > I think the point here was to see what different programs say when you > give it an invalid IP address.  In general, what happens is that the > program tries to do a DNS lookup which fails and you get an answer like > that, not an explanati

Re: 127.0.0.53 question

On 12/17/22 13:32, ToddAndMargo via users wrote: On 12/17/22 12:32, ToddAndMargo via users wrote: On 12/17/22 12:22, ToddAndMargo via users wrote: On 12/17/22 11:47, Samuel Sieb wrote: On 12/17/22 11:40, ToddAndMargo via users wrote: On 12/16/22 22:54, Samuel Sieb wrote: On 12/16/22 22:44, T

Re: 127.0.0.53 question

On 12/17/22 12:32, ToddAndMargo via users wrote: On 12/17/22 12:22, ToddAndMargo via users wrote: On 12/17/22 11:47, Samuel Sieb wrote: On 12/17/22 11:40, ToddAndMargo via users wrote: On 12/16/22 22:54, Samuel Sieb wrote: On 12/16/22 22:44, ToddAndMargo via users wrote: On 12/16/22 22:11, S

Re: 127.0.0.53 question

On 12/17/22 12:22, ToddAndMargo via users wrote: On 12/17/22 11:47, Samuel Sieb wrote: On 12/17/22 11:40, ToddAndMargo via users wrote: On 12/16/22 22:54, Samuel Sieb wrote: On 12/16/22 22:44, ToddAndMargo via users wrote: On 12/16/22 22:11, Samuel Sieb wrote: On 12/16/22 21:18, ToddAndMargo

Re: 127.0.0.53 question

On 12/17/22 11:47, Samuel Sieb wrote: On 12/17/22 11:40, ToddAndMargo via users wrote: On 12/16/22 22:54, Samuel Sieb wrote: On 12/16/22 22:44, ToddAndMargo via users wrote: On 12/16/22 22:11, Samuel Sieb wrote: On 12/16/22 21:18, ToddAndMargo via users wrote: On 12/16/22 20:23, Mike Wright

Re: 127.0.0.53 question

On 12/17/22 11:40, ToddAndMargo via users wrote: On 12/16/22 22:54, Samuel Sieb wrote: On 12/16/22 22:44, ToddAndMargo via users wrote: On 12/16/22 22:11, Samuel Sieb wrote: On 12/16/22 21:18, ToddAndMargo via users wrote: On 12/16/22 20:23, Mike Wright wrote: 127.0.0.0/8 is the loopback addr

Re: 127.0.0.53 question

On 12/16/22 22:54, Samuel Sieb wrote: On 12/16/22 22:44, ToddAndMargo via users wrote: On 12/16/22 22:11, Samuel Sieb wrote: On 12/16/22 21:18, ToddAndMargo via users wrote: On 12/16/22 20:23, Mike Wright wrote: 127.0.0.0/8 is the loopback address.  That means that any IP that begins with 127

Re: 127.0.0.53 question

On 12/17/22 10:51, Samuel Sieb wrote: On 12/17/22 10:35, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: On Sat, 2022-12-17 at 09:46 -0800, Mike Wright wrote: ping: 127.0.0.631: Name or service not known Once again: 127.0.0.631 is not a valid IP address. The final octet can never be greater than 255 (2^8-1). I

Re: 127.0.0.53 question

On 12/17/22 10:35, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: On Sat, 2022-12-17 at 09:46 -0800, Mike Wright wrote: ping: 127.0.0.631: Name or service not known Once again: 127.0.0.631 is not a valid IP address. The final octet can never be greater than 255 (2^8-1). I think the point here was to see what di

Re: 127.0.0.53 question

On Sat, 2022-12-17 at 09:46 -0800, Mike Wright wrote: > ping: 127.0.0.631: Name or service not known Once again: 127.0.0.631 is not a valid IP address. The final octet can never be greater than 255 (2^8-1). poc ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedo

Re: 127.0.0.53 question

On 12/17/22 01:09, Tim via users wrote: Tim: [...] Both are valid addresses. 127.0.0.631 is *unlikely* to be in use, but is valid. Jeffrey Walton Huh? Citation, please. Sorry, mental lapse there. The parts in numerical IP addresses go up to 255, maximum. That'll teach me to reply to an

Re: 127.0.0.53 question

On Sat, 2022-12-17 at 14:32 +0100, Roberto Ragusa wrote: > On 12/17/22 12:17, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > > On Sat, 2022-12-17 at 12:10 +0100, GianPiero Puccioni wrote: > > > > I thought that the last octet could not be 0 (address of the > > > network) > > > or 255 (broadcast). Is this not the sa

Re: 127.0.0.53 question

On 12/17/22 12:17, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: On Sat, 2022-12-17 at 12:10 +0100, GianPiero Puccioni wrote: I thought that the last octet could not be 0 (address of the network) or 255 (broadcast). Is this not the same for the Loopback? 127.0.0.0/8 refers to the network, not to a specific add

Re: 127.0.0.53 question

On Sat, 2022-12-17 at 12:10 +0100, GianPiero Puccioni wrote: > On 17/12/2022 05:23, Mike Wright wrote: > > [snip] > > > 127.0.0.0/8 is the loopback address.  That means that any IP that > > begins with > > 127 is a valid loopback address.  The three 0's can each be any > > number from 0 > > thr

Re: 127.0.0.53 question

On 17/12/2022 05:23, Mike Wright wrote: [snip] 127.0.0.0/8 is the loopback address.  That means that any IP that begins with 127 is a valid loopback address.  The three 0's can each be any number from 0 through 255. I thought that the last octet could not be 0 (address of the network) or 2

Re: 127.0.0.53 question

Tim: >> [...] >> Both are valid addresses. >> >> 127.0.0.631 is *unlikely* to be in use, but is valid. Jeffrey Walton > Huh? Citation, please. > Sorry, mental lapse there. The parts in numerical IP addresses go up to 255, maximum. That'll teach me to reply to an email while watching TV! Inter

Re: 127.0.0.53 question

On 12/16/2022 11:06 PM, Samuel Sieb wrote: I almost questioned you until I realized what your point was.  It would have helped if you explained what you meant.  Yes, 631 is not a valid IP octet. Exactly. I've been retired for over a decade but I found it obvious the moment I saw that "addres

Re: 127.0.0.53 question

On 12/16/22 22:44, ToddAndMargo via users wrote: On 12/16/22 22:11, Samuel Sieb wrote: On 12/16/22 21:18, ToddAndMargo via users wrote: On 12/16/22 20:23, Mike Wright wrote: 127.0.0.0/8 is the loopback address.  That means that any IP that begins with 127 is a valid loopback address.  The thre

Re: 127.0.0.53 question

Is that Dnsmasq like bind? The only thing I've ever cared to run would be something like rsync and ssh as far as servers. On Sat, Dec 17, 2022, 1:44 AM ToddAndMargo via users < users@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote: > On 12/16/22 22:11, Samuel Sieb wrote: > > On 12/16/22 21:18, ToddAndMargo via us

Re: 127.0.0.53 question

On 12/16/22 22:11, Samuel Sieb wrote: On 12/16/22 21:18, ToddAndMargo via users wrote: On 12/16/22 20:23, Mike Wright wrote: 127.0.0.0/8 is the loopback address.  That means that any IP that begins with 127 is a valid loopback address.  The three 0's can each be any number from 0 through 255.

Re: 127.0.0.53 question

On 12/16/22 22:06, Samuel Sieb wrote: On 12/16/22 21:33, Jeffrey Walton wrote: On Sat, Dec 17, 2022 at 12:27 AM Tim via users wrote: [...] Both are valid addresses. 127.0.0.631 is *unlikely* to be in use, but is valid. Huh? Citation, please. I almost questioned you until I realized what y

Re: 127.0.0.53 question

On 12/16/22 21:18, ToddAndMargo via users wrote: On 12/16/22 20:23, Mike Wright wrote: 127.0.0.0/8 is the loopback address.  That means that any IP that begins with 127 is a valid loopback address.  The three 0's can each be any number from 0 through 255. So the 127.0.0.53 was the bind guys

Re: 127.0.0.53 question

On 12/16/22 21:33, Jeffrey Walton wrote: On Sat, Dec 17, 2022 at 12:27 AM Tim via users wrote: [...] Both are valid addresses. 127.0.0.631 is *unlikely* to be in use, but is valid. Huh? Citation, please. I almost questioned you until I realized what your point was. It would have helped i

Re: 127.0.0.53 question

On Sat, Dec 17, 2022 at 12:27 AM Tim via users wrote: > [...] > Both are valid addresses. > > 127.0.0.631 is *unlikely* to be in use, but is valid. Huh? Citation, please. Jeff ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send

Re: 127.0.0.53 question

ToddAndMargo: >> So I tried CUPS: 127.0.0.631.  No joy.  CUPS still wanted >> 127.0.0.1:631. Joe Zeff: > That isn't a valid IP address. Both are valid addresses. 127.0.0.631 is *unlikely* to be in use, but is valid. 127.0.0.1:631 is port 631 at 127.0.0.1. Valid addresses, but only on the same

Re: 127.0.0.53 question

On 12/16/22 20:23, Mike Wright wrote: On 12/16/22 20:06, ToddAndMargo via users wrote: On Fri, Dec 16, 2022, 10:31 PM ToddAndMargo via users > wrote:     Hi All,     I am use to seeing 127.0.0.1, but now I am seeing     things like 127.0.0.53.     This i

Re: 127.0.0.53 question

On 12/16/22 20:06, ToddAndMargo via users wrote: On Fri, Dec 16, 2022, 10:31 PM ToddAndMargo via users mailto:users@lists.fedoraproject.org>> wrote:     Hi All,     I am use to seeing 127.0.0.1, but now I am seeing     things like 127.0.0.53.     This is used with my caching named server on

Re: 127.0.0.53 question

It's called the loopback address. The private class of ip is not nonroutable. On Fri, Dec 16, 2022, 11:10 PM Bill C wrote: > 127.0.0.1 is reserved for your machine. There are series of private > addresses in each ip class. 127 series and 192.168 series. They will not > work on the internet. A po

Re: 127.0.0.53 question

127.0.0.1 is reserved for your machine. There are series of private addresses in each ip class. 127 series and 192.168 series. They will not work on the internet. A port of 53 would look like 127.0.0.1:53. On Fri, Dec 16, 2022, 11:06 PM ToddAndMargo via users < users@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote

Re: 127.0.0.53 question

On Fri, Dec 16, 2022, 10:31 PM ToddAndMargo via users mailto:users@lists.fedoraproject.org>> wrote: Hi All, I am use to seeing 127.0.0.1, but now I am seeing things like 127.0.0.53. This is used with my caching named server on port 53. So I figured that the last digit

Re: 127.0.0.53 question

On 12/16/22 19:32, Jeffrey Walton wrote: On Fri, Dec 16, 2022 at 10:31 PM ToddAndMargo via users wrote: I am use to seeing 127.0.0.1, but now I am seeing things like 127.0.0.53. This is used with my caching named server on port 53. So I figured that the last digit was the (local) port. So I

Re: 127.0.0.53 question

Up to 255 On Fri, Dec 16, 2022, 10:31 PM ToddAndMargo via users < users@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote: > Hi All, > > I am use to seeing 127.0.0.1, but now I am seeing > things like 127.0.0.53. > > This is used with my caching named server on > port 53. > > So I figured that the last digit was th

Re: 127.0.0.53 question

On 12/16/2022 08:30 PM, ToddAndMargo via users wrote: So I tried CUPS: 127.0.0.631.  No joy.  CUPS still wanted 127.0.0.1:631. That isn't a valid IP address. ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to user

Re: 127.0.0.53 question

On Fri, Dec 16, 2022 at 10:31 PM ToddAndMargo via users wrote: > > I am use to seeing 127.0.0.1, but now I am seeing > things like 127.0.0.53. > > This is used with my caching named server on > port 53. > > So I figured that the last digit was the (local) > port. > > So I tried CUPS: 127.0.0.631.

127.0.0.53 question

Hi All, I am use to seeing 127.0.0.1, but now I am seeing things like 127.0.0.53. This is used with my caching named server on port 53. So I figured that the last digit was the (local) port. So I tried CUPS: 127.0.0.631. No joy. CUPS still wanted 127.0.0.1:631. So what exactly is the last f