From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Mar 5 01:30:41 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 4D81F1065673 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 01:30:41 +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 F36D08FC19 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 01:30:40 +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 m251UXpP075061; Tue, 4 Mar 2008 17:30:39 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from chris#@1command.com) Received: (from www@localhost) by mail.1command.com (8.13.3/8.13.3/Submit) id m251UW8t075060; Tue, 4 Mar 2008 17:30:32 -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 17:30:32 -0800 Message-ID: <20080304173032.2n9lrst6ewww4kos@webmail.1command.com> X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2008 17:30:32 -0800 From: "Chris H." To: Greg Black 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> <20080304033914.hbevsjq9gkc0o4os@webmail.1command.com> In-Reply-To: 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: Wed, 05 Mar 2008 01:30:41 -0000 Quoting Greg Black : > On 2008-03-04, Chris H. wrote: > >> 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 you think the above shows evidence of providing 254 IP addresses, > it's really time either to catch up on some sleep or learn how these > things work. Quite so. That was my point; adding netmask 255.255.255.0 (0xffffff00) gave me 254 addresses. While the netmask 0xffffffff provides 1. > >> 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. > > The fact that you could not find the difference(s) is no evidence that > there are none. It's abundantly clear from this very lengthy and often > almost content-free discussion that you are either so tired and frantic > that your brain has seized up or that you really don't understand this > stuff as well as you think. > > (The clear evidence is that you have no idea of the meaning of assigning > and IP address to an interface versus the meaning of an IP address given > as a reply to a name lookup -- yet you continue to insist that you do > have such an understanding.) > > If you could give a clear and complete description of what is really > happening, without any of your own theories clouding that description, > somebody clueful might be able to see just what is the obvious factor > you have missed. As things stand, you are just going around in big > unproductive circles and giving the rest of us no useful information to > help you with. > > None of the above is intended as a flame, but it's really time to take > stock and make a serious attempt to provide all the data so that those > who can help are able to understand the problem. Thank you for your tolerance. I'm afraid - to my great embarrassment, that a 5:30am - 3:30am day ultimately results in NON productivity; in spite of my instance to close this issue before calling it a day. In short; Indeed. Your analysis is quite accurate. I'm afraid, after spending s-o-o-o much time on the issue, I became /quite/ obsessed with closure that I made a fool of myself here. Please accept my apologies. In the future, I'll choose a tall Tequila & tonic, and a good nights sleep - over spamming the list. :) In short; the title /should/ have read 127.0.0.1/8 In my case; I was working with 2 of my servers - a RELENG_6, and an 7-RC3. The RELENG_6 defaulted to 127.0.0.1/8 While the 7-RC3 defaulted to 127.0.0.1/32 There were other peculiarities which I added to the thread that I thought worth mentioning. But ultimately, only served to cloud the whole matter. Thanks again. --Chris H I hope > > Greg > _______________________________________________ > 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)