Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Sun, 7 Jan 2001 04:19:59 -0800 (PST) | From | David Ford <> |
| |
On Mon, 8 Jan 2001, Chris Wedgwood wrote: > Bind knows about multiple virtual interfaces; but we can also have > multiple addresses on a single interface and have no virtual > interfaces at all. > > I doubt bind knows about this nor handles it. > > <pause> > > OK, I'm a liar -- bind does handle this. Cool. > > Jan 8 01:09:12 tapu named[599]: listening on [127.0.0.1].53 (lo) > Jan 8 01:09:12 tapu named[599]: listening on [10.0.0.1].53 (lo) > Jan 8 01:09:12 tapu named[599]: listening on [x.x.x.x].53 (x0) > Jan 8 01:09:12 tapu named[599]: Forwarding source address is [0.0.0.0].1032 > > This is good news, because it means there is a precedent for multiple > addresses on a single interface so we can kill the <ifname>:<n> > syntax in favor of the above which is cleaner of more accurately > represents what is happening.
I've been using the new form for a long long time now and I assure you, BIND hasn't had any problems with it for a long long time. :)
BIND as most all programs, should not care what the interface is or how it is laid out. It binds to an address and port and shouldn't care otherwise.
Would I really put you in a quandry if I told you I had multiple different media interfaces all with the same IP and BIND happily answered on all of them? ;)
-d
-- ---NOTICE--- fwd: fwd: fwd: type emails will be deleted automatically. "There is a natural aristocracy among men. The grounds of this are virtue and talents", Thomas Jefferson [1742-1826], 3rd US President
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |