From owner-freebsd-questions Sat Feb 3 15:41:53 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from sixpence.mtcibs.com (sixpence.solveinteractive.com [204.62.227.50]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D516837B503 for ; Sat, 3 Feb 2001 15:41:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from gold.mtcibs.com (gold [204.62.225.30]) by sixpence.mtcibs.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA03518 for ; Sat, 3 Feb 2001 18:41:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from trinity.solveinteractive.com (trinity.solveinteractive.com [204.62.225.170]) by gold.mtcibs.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) with ESMTP id SAA02521 for ; Sat, 3 Feb 2001 18:41:31 -0500 (EST) Received: (from rch@localhost) by trinity.solveinteractive.com (8.11.1/8.11.1) id f13NgQk51628 for freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG; Sat, 3 Feb 2001 18:42:26 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from rch) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 18:42:26 -0500 From: Robert Hough To: freebsd-questions Subject: Re: [mwithers: Re: Routing problem 2 ISA NICs on one machine] Message-ID: <20010203184226.B51545@solveinteractive.com> Reply-To: rch@solveinteractive.com Mail-Followup-To: freebsd-questions References: <20010203160206.B21863@arrakis.desert-power.org> <20010203161125.D21863@arrakis.desert-power.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20010203161125.D21863@arrakis.desert-power.org> X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 4.2-RELEASE on an i386 Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Mark B. Withers [mwithers@one.net] wrote: > I meant only one loopback address for each interface. Again, I'm not sure why you would need a seperate loopback for each interface. This seems 'odd' to me. I think your co-worker is either A) Pulling your leg B) a dumb ass, and you should avoid future advice from him. However, I could easily be the dumb ass in this case. I just don't see why you would need this. > I have 2 ISA nics which one would require a loopback address of 127.0.0.1 > while the other would be 127.1.0.1 and if I had a 3rd nic it would be > 127.2.0.1 and so forth. No, this not the case. I'm not sure why this person would tell you that you need additional loopback devices for each physical interface. You don't need that, here -- I'll show ya. (ip's removed to protect the innocent) [rch@hostname:rch] $ ifconfig -a vx0: flags=8843 mtu 1500 inet 10.0.0.5 netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 10.0.0.255 ether 00:20:af:f1:3b:1f de0: flags=8843 mtu 1500 inet 192.168.1.51 netmask 0xfffffff0 broadcast 192.168.1.63 ether 00:00:c0:28:69:db media: autoselect (10baseT/UTP) status: active supported media: autoselect 10base5/AUI 10base2/BNC 10baseT/UTP 10baseT/UTP lp0: flags=8810 mtu 1500 lo0: flags=8049 mtu 16384 inet 127.0.0.1 netmask 0xff000000 The machine above is running ipfw, and has zero problems accessing it's own interfaces or other IP's on the net. Notice, it only has a single loopback device. Why is that, because only one is required. :) If I were you, I'd go smack this co-worker. He sounds like an MCSE... > I only wondered if anybody had heard of this as to separate each nic > so that each interface responds independantly when called upon by it's > ip address. Each interface should respond individually per their IP address. No, I've never heard of requiring multiple loopback devices for this. > As it stands now (with only one loopback (127.0.0.1)) only > one interface responds even when I am pinging the ip address of the > second network interface. Is the second interface enabled? What do you get when you do an ifconfig -a? What does your current routing table look like (netstat -nr)? Do you have ipfilters setup, and if so, what is the default policy? -- Robert Hough (rch@solveinteractive.com) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message