Re: Solaris and lack of loopback routes
From: Bennett Todd (bet@rahul.net)Date: 08/12/02
- Previous message: Muhammad Faisal Rauf Danka: "Re: Hardening NIS+"
- In reply to: Darren Moffat: "Re: Solaris and lack of loopback routes"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 09:50:03 -0400 From: Bennett Todd <bet@rahul.net> To: Darren Moffat <Darren.Moffat@Sun.COM>
2002-08-09-17:22:34 Darren Moffat:
> I'm willing to log a bug or rfe on this for Solaris but before I do
> I need someone to re-state clearly what the problem is that adding a
> route to the 127.0.0.0 network rather than the 127.0.0.1 host is. In
> addition to that why we should change the existing behaviour of Solaris
> from what it is today.
The loopback interface should receive traffic for 127.0.0.0/8;
that's the RFC standard, and it's a useful feature.
Besides various testing scenarios where it's desireable to run
multiple different servers, bound to the same port, on loopback
addresses, there are also real production settings where it's
useful. I've seen people play clever games involving using routes
through loopback addresses to help implement failover strategies.
And I myself routinely use 127.0.0.1 on my laptop for my recursive
resolver (dnscache) and 127.0.0.2 for my private root nameserver
(tinydns), with the dnscache configured to use the tinydns as its
root. This is also a good config for a high-performance,
high-availability production server that must use DNS extensively,
e.g. a mail hub.
-Bennett
- application/pgp-signature attachment: stored
- Previous message: Muhammad Faisal Rauf Danka: "Re: Hardening NIS+"
- In reply to: Darren Moffat: "Re: Solaris and lack of loopback routes"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
