Quoting Andy Dills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

On Mon, 3 Mar 2008, Chris H. wrote:

Greetings,
I'm having some difficulty working with anything past 127.0.0.1.
It seems impossible to use (create) any addresses on the "loopback"
past 127.0.0.1.
More specifically; I installed rbldnsd from ports, and it worked quite
well on a 6.x install. However, attempting the same config/install on
a 7-RC3 install yields the inability to bind/create 127.0.0.2, or
127.0.0.3 for rbldnsd to answer on - all queries are refused. The
same pinging/digging, etc.

The 2 servers have /exactly/ the same net setups, and DNS/rbldnsd
configs. Yet no joy on the RELENG_7 box. So it /appears/ something
in this area has changed since 6. But I'm unable to discover any
info on it.

Thank you for all your time and consideration.

What subnet mask did you use when creating the 127.0.0.2 (etc) interfaces
on lo0?

On 7.0-R, I just ifconfig'ed 127.0.0.2 as an alias to lo0 with a subnet
mask of 255.255.255.255, and I was able to bind/listen/accept on it with
no problem.

Indeed. I have several /24's to manage, and alias the bulk of them to
the NIC on the server(s). But, having /identical/ configurations/setups
of FreeBSD, and rbldnsd on two different servers; the recent RELENG_6
server desires/requires no alias on lo0, and happily provides a 127.0.0/24
While the same setup on a 7-RC3 will only provide 127.0.0.1. Which
brings me to my original question; What's different on 7 regarding the
127.0.0/24 block?

Thank you very much Andy, for taking the time to respond.

--Chris H



Andy

---
Andy Dills
Xecunet, Inc.
www.xecu.net
301-682-9972
---
_______________________________________________
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"




--
panic: kernel trap (ignored)



_______________________________________________
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Reply via email to