Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2008 16:58:30 -0800 From: "Chris H." <chris#@1command.com> To: freebsd-stable-local@be-well.ilk.or Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: What's new on the 127.0.0/24 block in 7? Message-ID: <20080304165830.aovtynb9c48g0go0@webmail.1command.com> In-Reply-To: <20080304164810.lu7t6dx0gkcs4c0c@webmail.1command.com> 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> <44ablefys3.fsf@Lowell-Desk.lan> <20080304164810.lu7t6dx0gkcs4c0c@webmail.1command.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Quoting "Chris H." <chris#@1command.com>: > Quoting Lowell Gilbert <freebsd-stable-local@be-well.ilk.org>: > >> "Chris H." <chris#@1command.com> writes: >> >>> Yes, adding an entry in /etc/rc.conf that provides 254 IP's now >>> reveals: >>> lo0: flags=8049<UP,LOOPBACK,RUNNING,MULTICAST> 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. >> >> Let's peel this issue back to the basics. >> >> This does *not* have 254 IP addresses on that interface. The >> interface still has only one address on that interface. There are 254 >> other addresses on the subnet, but only one of them belongs to your >> machine. If you want the machine to answer to 127.0.0.2, you still >> need to add it separately. > > Yes. Of course. In the same way one might add /any/ address to their > "working pool" - eg; > ifconfig_lo0="inet 127.0.0.1 netmask 255.255.255.224" > which could/might be followed by > ifconfig_lo0_alias0="inet 127.0.0.2 netmask 255.255.255.255" > etc... > 127.0.0.0 - NET > 127.0.0.255 - BCAST <strike>127.0.0.255 - BCAST</strike> 127.0.0.31 - BCAST > > In spite of the way I announced/described all this, > I'm actually familiar with the whole thing. Then why did you claim 255 addresses on a /27 in your post. > My only > interest was in determining why the netmask defaulted > to 0xffffffff (255.255.255.255) on the lo0 interface > in my 7-RC3 install. While all of my RELENG_6 servers > happily provided 0xff000000. After much examination, > and research, I could find no apparent reason. So > decided to ask here. > > Thank you for taking the time to respond. > > --Chris H > >> _______________________________________________ >> 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) > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080304165830.aovtynb9c48g0go0>