From owner-freebsd-isp Mon Feb 17 14:18:13 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id OAA19775 for isp-outgoing; Mon, 17 Feb 1997 14:18:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from panda.hilink.com.au (panda.hilink.com.au [203.2.144.5]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA19769 for ; Mon, 17 Feb 1997 14:18:06 -0800 (PST) Received: (from danny@localhost) by panda.hilink.com.au (8.7.6/8.7.3) id JAA24027; Tue, 18 Feb 1997 09:20:51 +1100 (EST) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 09:20:50 +1100 (EST) From: "Daniel O'Callaghan" To: Brandon Gillespie cc: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Which way is 'correct'? (was: Re: Aliases) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-isp@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk 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