Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 11:09:40 +0300 From: Nadav Eiron <nadav@barcode.co.il> To: John-David Childs <jdc@denver.net> Cc: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: IP aliasing on lo0 or ethernet? Message-ID: <33AF80C4.75C0@barcode.co.il> References: <Pine.BSI.3.95.970622200152.14522A-100000@denver.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
John-David Childs wrote: > > While looking through the handbook for info about CVSUP, I came across > three "tutorials" on IP aliasing (one in the Handbook, one in the FAQ, and > one in the "Tutorials"). All three basically suggested IP aliasing to the > Ethernet card, using netmask 255.255.255.255 and adding route commands to > route the aliased IP to the loopback device. > > However, for several years now I've been aliasing IP's to the loopback > device directly, and using arp commands to distribute the aliased IP to > routing daemons in the subnet if necessary. > > So, why is aliasing to the ethernet device preferable to aliasing to lo0? > Or more accurately stated...what's the difference and why would one choose > method A over method B? Thanks for the advice. By what I recall, specifying a netmask of all 1's will even do the routing automatically, so you have nothing to do except for the ifconfig itself. Aliasing the loopback and manually arping seems crude and ugly to me... After all what you'd like is for your Ethernet interface to have more than one address, it's not a loopback address you're interested in... > -- > > John-David Childs (JC612) @denver.net/Internet-Coach > System Administrator Enterprise Internet Solutions > & Network Engineer 901 E 17th Ave, Denver 80218 > "I used up all my sick days... so I'm calling in dead!" Nadav
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?33AF80C4.75C0>