From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Mar 22 6:12:50 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from alpha.netvision.net.il (alpha.netvision.net.il [194.90.1.13]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 175E137C068; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 06:12:41 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from danhil@cwnt.com) Received: from unspecified.host (ras3-p82.hfa.netvision.net.il [62.0.147.82]) by alpha.netvision.net.il (8.9.3/8.8.6) with SMTP id QAA16403; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 16:12:35 +0200 (IST) Received: from 192.168.0.46 ([192.168.0.46]) by 192.168.0.1 (WinRoute 3.04g) with SMTP; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 16:02:02 +0200 Message-ID: <031701bf9407$5d000eb0$2e00a8c0@cwnt.co.il> From: "Daniel Hilevich" To: Cc: Subject: Loopback device and 127.0.0.1address Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 16:03:13 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1255" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Hi, Does anyone have an idea why after creating 128 loopack devices and configuring lo127 to 127.0.0.1 (instead of the default lo0) I am experiencing many problems in interprocess communication using sockets? Are lo0 and 127.0.0.1 (INADDR_LOOPBACK) tightly coupled? Thanks, --- Daniel Hilevich mailto:danhil@cwnt.com Tel: +972-4-9592203 ext. 214 Charlotte's Web Networks LTD. http://www.cwnt.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message