lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [Jan]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 02:22:31AM -0800, David Ford wrote:

BIND copes just fine, how would it not? I haven't heard any
problems with routing daemons either.

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.



--cw
-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:52    [W:0.150 / U:1.224 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site