Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Mon, 8 Jan 2001 01:13:08 +1300 | From | Chris Wedgwood <> |
| |
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/
|  |