From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Mar 4 11:39:31 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 90564106566C; Tue, 4 Mar 2008 11:39:31 +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 5059A8FC24; Tue, 4 Mar 2008 11:39:23 +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 m24BdFhx094345; Tue, 4 Mar 2008 03:39:21 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from chris#@1command.com) Received: (from www@localhost) by mail.1command.com (8.13.3/8.13.3/Submit) id m24BdFxh094344; Tue, 4 Mar 2008 03:39:15 -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; Tue, 04 Mar 2008 03:39:14 -0800 Message-ID: <20080304033914.hbevsjq9gkc0o4os@webmail.1command.com> X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2008 03:39:14 -0800 From: "Chris H." To: Jeremy Chadwick References: <200803040619.m246Jbja018523@drugs.dv.isc.org> <20080304000320.msp5bfrytc0wsowg@webmail.1command.com> <1204625690.2126.181.camel@localhost> <20080304024831.fh4h1s3hggg444c0@webmail.1command.com> <20080304110042.GB84355@eos.sc1.parodius.com> In-Reply-To: <20080304110042.GB84355@eos.sc1.parodius.com> 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: 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 11:39:31 -0000 Quoting Jeremy Chadwick : > On Tue, Mar 04, 2008 at 02:48:31AM -0800, Chris H. wrote: >> In long; Both servers have the same (and only) entry: >> /etc/defaults/rc.conf: ifconfig_lo0="inet 127.0.0.1" >> no more, no less. >> The RELENG_6 server reports: >> lo0: flags=8049 mtu 16384 >> inet 127.0.0.1 netmask 0xff000000 inet6 ::1 prefixlen 128 >> inet6 fe80::1%lo0 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x3 >> The 7-RC3 did not (I'd provide the output, but I've since added >> and activated an entry in /etc/rc.conf that provides a /24 on >> lo0). Since I'm only /really/ interested in SWIP'ing 3 IP's out of >> the the block 254 will be more than enough. > > Okay so it sounds like there's two separate issues here: > > 1) The issue with rbldnsd not working for you on RELENG_7 (returning > REFUSED and some other oddities), > 2) When assigning an IP to lo0 on your RELENG_7 box, the netmask chosen > is 255.255.255.255 (0xffffffff) instead of 255.0.0.0 (0xff000000), > even though for everyone else this isn't happening. :-) > > You've made a hackfix for the issue in #2 by explicitly putting the > following line in your /etc/rc.conf: > > ifconfig_lo0="inet 127.0.0.1 netmask 255.0.0.0" > > Which also appears to resolve issue #1, is that correct? Yes, adding an entry in /etc/rc.conf that provides 254 IP's now reveals: lo0: flags=8049 metric 0 mtu 16384 inet6 ::1 prefixlen 128 inet6 fe80::1%lo0 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x3 inet 127.0.0.1 netmask 0xffffff00 as opposed to: 0xffffffff. > > If that's true, there is greater demons at work here, LOL. By the time you read this, you will have already read my /punny/ statement to the same. :) > or something we > aren't being told about the configuration. Again, the IPs in rbldnsd > zone files have nothing to do with IP addresses or netmasks associated > with loopback, so I don't see how changing the netmask would fix that. > It almost sounds as if the rbldnsd software may be written to assume > they're all related, and I sure hope that isn't the case. No. I'm more inclined, at this state. To think that since the IP is defined in the zone file. That it requires the /availability/ of the IP so that it can use it - not unlike the BIND. But, it is not the BIND, so will have it's own (see; different) way of management regarding IP<-->name, etc... Anyway, my /real/ reason for starting all this, was to figure out why the 2 machines act so differently. I can assure you that I have spent the entire day attempting to figure out if any difference had crept into any of the server configs. But could find none. Thanks again for all your time and effort. --Chris H > > -- > | Jeremy Chadwick jdc at parodius.com | > | Parodius Networking http://www.parodius.com/ | > | UNIX Systems Administrator Mountain View, CA, USA | > | Making life hard for others since 1977. PGP: 4BD6C0CB | > > _______________________________________________ > 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)