What's new on the 127.0.0/24 block in 7?

[Chris H.]

Quoting Greg Black <freebsd at mail.gbch.net>:

> 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<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.
>
> 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 at freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
>



-- 
panic: kernel trap (ignored)