Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 11:10:53 +0300 (EEST) From: Dmitry Pryanishnikov <dmitry@atlantis.dp.ua> To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Cc: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Subject: Re: possible patch for implementing split DNS Message-ID: <20060829101749.R48261@atlantis.atlantis.dp.ua> In-Reply-To: <20060829010553.GC93062@dwpc.dwlabs.ca> References: <44EF6E18.6090905@elischer.org> <44F3429F.6050204@FreeBSD.org> <44F344FA.1000408@elischer.org> <20060828221218.GB93062@dwpc.dwlabs.ca> <44F370F2.7080406@elischer.org> <20060829010553.GC93062@dwpc.dwlabs.ca>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hello! On Mon, 28 Aug 2006, Duane Whitty wrote: > Well, I think maybe your solution is the simplest and it sounds like an > interesting feature. I do wonder though if it would be possible to bind > a process to a network interface alias on the fly? So if you had ten possible Alas I don't see the way to bind an abstract process to the specific IP address on hosts with several IPs. For applications which use connect(2), we have net/libconnect port, but simple experiments with it and a couple of trivial resolver(3) consumers (like ping or telnet) show that resolver(3) doesn't use connect(2) by default, so net/libconnect can't change source IP address for DNS queries on the fly. Sincerely, Dmitry -- Atlantis ISP, System Administrator e-mail: dmitry@atlantis.dp.ua nic-hdl: LYNX-RIPE
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060829101749.R48261>