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

[Chris H.]

Quoting Andy Dills <andy at xecu.net>:

> On Mon, 3 Mar 2008, Chris H. wrote:
>
>> > Are you sure it's a /24 you are talking about? My 7.0 disks install
>> > 127.0.0.1/8 here.
>>
>> Really? Where did you get the install disc? Mine clearly doesn't. :(
>> All I am provided is 127.0.0.1 - not 127.0.0.2,3...
>
> 127.0.0.1/8 just means 127.0.0.1 with a netmask of 255.0.0.0. It doesn't
> imply a default behavior of binding to any other address than 127.0.0.1.
>
> But I'm still really confused what you're trying to do...
>
> See, the idea of returning multiple 127.0.0.X addressess within RBL is to
> convey different information while using a single zone.
>
> In the beginning, the RBLs would just reply with 127.0.0.1 and use
> different zones to imply different contexts...now you use a single zone
> with different 127.0.0.X addresses to convey the same information.
>
> But...you don't actually do anything with that resolution beyond determine
> if a given record is listed or not. You don't actually need to configure
> or use the various 127.0.0.X addresses that might get returned.
>
> On the other hand, if you're using multiple rbldnsd instances, one per
> zone... hile it's a pain you can indeed configured rbldns to serve
> multiple zones. Or just bind the additional loopback instances

Precisely! Sorry I apparently wasn't clearer in the beginning.
According to my conversations with the author of rbldnsd, rbldnsd was
returning REFUSED to all my requests on my FBSD-7 server. Because it
was unable to communicate on 127.0.0.2. Even though it was bound to my
internet routable IP, it still needed 127.0.0.2, because that was the
IP associated with one of my zones (2 in all).
However, I had no difficulties using 2 zones on my recent RELENG_6
server, (served out of 127.0.0.2, and 127.0.0.3).
/This/ is why I felt there must be some difference between the 2
releases (FBSD).
Anyway, I didn't want to spam the list soliciting advice on setting
up rbldnsd - I already know how to do that. It just /appeared/ that
there was some difference in the handling of lo0, and it's associated
IP space. So, as I could find no info in src/UPDATING, or ports/UPDATING,
nor the man pages. I thought I'd better ask here.

>
>
> BTW, /etc/netstart is a nice shortcut to avoid fatfingering an ifconfig.

Thanks. That's good to know. My first thought, is to probably just assign
a different netmask to lo0, in an effort to get the additional IP's.
Then see if everything works as well as it did on my RELENG_6 server.

Thanks again for your response. I think you really helped clear things
up - though I still have no answer as to why there is a difference
between the 2.

Oh, well.

Thank care.

--Chris H

>
> Andy
>
> ---
> Andy Dills
> Xecunet, Inc.
> www.xecu.net
> 301-682-9972
> ---
> _______________________________________________
> 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)