From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Mar 4 05:09:25 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7AF7106566C for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2008 05:09:25 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from chris#@1command.com) Received: from mail.1command.com (mail.1command.com [75.160.109.226]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C0B28FC16 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2008 05:09:25 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from chris#@1command.com) Received: from mail.1command.com (localhost.1command.com [127.0.0.1]) by mail.1command.com (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id m2459IHm049680; Mon, 3 Mar 2008 21:09:24 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from chris#@1command.com) Received: (from www@localhost) by mail.1command.com (8.13.3/8.13.3/Submit) id m2459H3X049678; Mon, 3 Mar 2008 21:09:17 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from chris#@1command.com) Received: from hitme.hitometer.net (hitme.hitometer.net [75.160.109.235]) by webmail.1command.com (H.R. Communications Messaging System) with HTTP; Mon, 03 Mar 2008 21:09:17 -0800 Message-ID: <20080303210917.wnznjkhsv4kwg8k4@webmail.1command.com> X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2008 21:09:17 -0800 From: "Chris H." To: Andy Dills References: <20080303174335.xzd80uz0so48o8sk@webmail.1command.com> <20080303214847.E63813@shell.xecu.net> <20080303192359.5fdwtzl7s48ksg8w@webmail.1command.com> <20080304032920.GC2964@k7.mavetju> <20080303193944.42tvgis6tc80swoc@webmail.1command.com> <20080303230607.Q63813@shell.xecu.net> In-Reply-To: <20080303230607.Q63813@shell.xecu.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format="flowed" Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit User-Agent: H.R. Communications Internet Messaging System (HCIMS) 4.1 Professional (not for redistribution) / FreeBSD-5.5 Cc: Edwin Groothuis , freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: What's new on the 127.0.0/24 block in 7? X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2008 05:09:25 -0000 Quoting Andy Dills : > On Mon, 3 Mar 2008, Chris H. wrote: > >> > Are you sure it's a /24 you are talking about? My 7.0 disks install >> > 127.0.0.1/8 here. >> >> Really? Where did you get the install disc? Mine clearly doesn't. :( >> All I am provided is 127.0.0.1 - not 127.0.0.2,3... > > 127.0.0.1/8 just means 127.0.0.1 with a netmask of 255.0.0.0. It doesn't > imply a default behavior of binding to any other address than 127.0.0.1. > > But I'm still really confused what you're trying to do... > > See, the idea of returning multiple 127.0.0.X addressess within RBL is to > convey different information while using a single zone. > > In the beginning, the RBLs would just reply with 127.0.0.1 and use > different zones to imply different contexts...now you use a single zone > with different 127.0.0.X addresses to convey the same information. > > But...you don't actually do anything with that resolution beyond determine > if a given record is listed or not. You don't actually need to configure > or use the various 127.0.0.X addresses that might get returned. > > On the other hand, if you're using multiple rbldnsd instances, one per > zone... hile it's a pain you can indeed configured rbldns to serve > multiple zones. Or just bind the additional loopback instances Precisely! Sorry I apparently wasn't clearer in the beginning. According to my conversations with the author of rbldnsd, rbldnsd was returning REFUSED to all my requests on my FBSD-7 server. Because it was unable to communicate on 127.0.0.2. Even though it was bound to my internet routable IP, it still needed 127.0.0.2, because that was the IP associated with one of my zones (2 in all). However, I had no difficulties using 2 zones on my recent RELENG_6 server, (served out of 127.0.0.2, and 127.0.0.3). /This/ is why I felt there must be some difference between the 2 releases (FBSD). Anyway, I didn't want to spam the list soliciting advice on setting up rbldnsd - I already know how to do that. It just /appeared/ that there was some difference in the handling of lo0, and it's associated IP space. So, as I could find no info in src/UPDATING, or ports/UPDATING, nor the man pages. I thought I'd better ask here. > > > BTW, /etc/netstart is a nice shortcut to avoid fatfingering an ifconfig. Thanks. That's good to know. My first thought, is to probably just assign a different netmask to lo0, in an effort to get the additional IP's. Then see if everything works as well as it did on my RELENG_6 server. Thanks again for your response. I think you really helped clear things up - though I still have no answer as to why there is a difference between the 2. Oh, well. Thank care. --Chris H > > Andy > > --- > Andy Dills > Xecunet, Inc. > www.xecu.net > 301-682-9972 > --- > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > -- panic: kernel trap (ignored)