From owner-freebsd-isp Thu Dec 23 19:17:48 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org Received: from internal.mail.demon.net (internal.mail.demon.net [193.195.224.3]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CEF01507B for ; Thu, 23 Dec 1999 19:17:45 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from fanf@demon.net) Received: from fanf.eng.demon.net (fanf.eng.demon.net [195.11.55.89]) by internal.mail.demon.net with ESMTP id DAA19297; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 03:17:38 GMT Received: from fanf by fanf.eng.demon.net with local (Exim 3.12 #3) id 121LEX-0008dM-00 for isp@freebsd.org; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 03:17:37 +0000 To: isp@freebsd.org From: Tony Finch Cc: patl@phoenix.volant.org Subject: Re: Virtual hosts: IP aliases on de0 or lo0 ? In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Date: Fri, 24 Dec 1999 03:17:37 +0000 Sender: owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org patl@phoenix.volant.org wrote: > >What are the relative merits of putting the IP aliases on the >network interface (de0) as versus the loopback interface (lo0) ? You save arps by using the loopback interface; I don't know of any disadvantages beyond requiring marginally more complicated routing. >Would there be any benefits at all to creating additional >loopback interfaces instead of aliasing? (I suspect not; but >would like to hear from someone more knowlegable about why.) No. If your virtual hosts have their own CIDR block allocation of IP addresses then the patch in PR#12071 improves performance and managability. Tony. -- dot it at To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message