[lkml]   [2001]   [Sep]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: notion of a local address [was: Re: ioctl SIOCGIFNETMASK: ip alias bug 2.4.9 and 2.2.19]
On Thu, Sep 06, 2001 at 06:47:42PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 06, 2001 at 08:44:23PM +0400, Andrey Savochkin wrote:
> > The question was which ip.address in user@[ip.address] should be treated as
> > local.
> > My comment was that the only reasonable solution on Linux is to treat this
> > way addresses explicitly specified in the configuration file.
> > Postfix may show its guess at the installation time.
> >
> > Now the question of recognizing user@[ip.address] as local is a question of a
> > simple table lookup.
> It would be at least possible to ask the routing engine via RTM_GETROUTE
> and checking for RTN_LOCAL if it considers an address local.
> It won't cover all cases with netfilter rules etc.; but probably be a good
> enough approximation.

Well, you need to enlist local addresses, not to verify, so I would suggest
inspecting `local' routing table.

But it doesn't help with the other example I provided a couple of messages
earlier: several MTAs on one system listening on their own IP addresses.
Some time ago, when I was engaged in system administration activity, almost
all my mail relays had several MTAs, each in its own chroot environments...

So, using routing in the post-install script to provide suggestion what
should be written in the configuration file is very reasonable, probably,
it's the best guess that the script can make.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:02    [W:0.311 / U:0.052 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site