Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 09:20:50 +1100 (EST) From: "Daniel O'Callaghan" <danny@panda.hilink.com.au> To: Brandon Gillespie <brandon@cold.org> Cc: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Which way is 'correct'? (was: Re: Aliases) Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.91.970218090358.8268L-100000@panda.hilink.com.au> In-Reply-To: <Pine.NEB.3.95.970217133109.12769A-100000@cold.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 17 Feb 1997, Brandon Gillespie wrote: > >From this thread I heard that both of the following ways of adding an IP > alias will work. What I'm wondering is which way is the 'best' way? > > ifconfig lo0 alias x.y.z netmask 255.255.255.255 > arp -s x.y.z 00:c0:f0:0a:25:de pub > > vs: > > ifconfig ed0 alias x.y.z netmask 255.255.255.255 > arp add x.y.z 127.0.0.1 > > They both work, which is the better way? Frankly I'd think the latter > would be, as it isn't tied to any hardware configuration (i.e. the > ethernet address). Doesn't really matter. Defining an alias on an ethernet interface will cause it to reply to arp queries for that IP address, just as arp -s does. But, your dilemma only arises when you are using IP addresses which belong on the subnet. If you did what I consider to be the *Right Thing*, you would use subnets, put your extra IPs onto lo0 and define your WWW box as a gateway to the subnet. But really, it is not worth going to that trouble if you only have 3 or 4. Danny
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.91.970218090358.8268L-100000>