On 5/1/12 2:32 PM, "Augie Schwer" wrote:
>> Contrary to what a lot of other people have suggested, it is in fact
>> possible using the socket API to bind() to IPs which aren't explicitly
>> created, due to special handling on the loopback interface. This can
>> certainly be done under Linux, for e
On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 2:00 AM, Phil Mayers wrote:
> Which operating system are you running?
Linux, I'm sorry I did not mention that earlier as it may have saved
some confusion.
> Contrary to what a lot of other people have suggested, it is in fact
> possible using the socket API to bind() to IP
In article ,
Larry Brower wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA512
>
> On 04/30/2012 07:13 PM, Augie Schwer wrote:
> > Thanks for the reply, please see my previous e-mail about the address
> > being perfectly pingable on that interface.
> >
>
> Whats that have to do with any
On 05/01/2012 10:00 AM, Phil Mayers wrote:
So you might be being a bit too clever, and foxing the named socket code
I'm afraid.
That should of course be "the named socket code is foxing you". Sigh.
___
Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listi
On 04/30/2012 10:56 PM, Augie Schwer wrote:
I must be doing something wrong, because what I want to do doesn't
seem that difficult.
I have a range of IPs bound to a local interface:
lo:1 Link encap:Local Loopback
inet addr:10.0.0.1 Mask:255.255.255.224
And I want to convince B
On 4/30/12 10:17 PM, "Mark Andrews" wrote:
> The fact that you can ping them just means that you have a kernel
> bug.
Yeah, the bug is using Linux. ;-)
--
Don't worry about avoiding temptation -- as you grow older, it starts
avoiding you. -- The Old Farmer's Almanac
_
In message , michoski writes:
> On 4/30/12 4:14 PM, "Augie Schwer" wrote:
> > I think you've all missed the netmask there, 10.0.0.2 is in that range.
> >
> > augie@augnix:~$ sudo ifconfig lo:1 10.0.0.1 netmask 255.255.255.224
> >
> > augie@augnix:~$ ifconfig lo:1
> > lo:1 Link encap:Local
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 04/30/2012 07:13 PM, Augie Schwer wrote:
> Thanks for the reply, please see my previous e-mail about the address
> being perfectly pingable on that interface.
>
Whats that have to do with anything? It being pingable only means
something is respo
On 4/30/12 4:14 PM, "Augie Schwer" wrote:
> I think you've all missed the netmask there, 10.0.0.2 is in that range.
>
> augie@augnix:~$ sudo ifconfig lo:1 10.0.0.1 netmask 255.255.255.224
>
> augie@augnix:~$ ifconfig lo:1
> lo:1 Link encap:Local Loopback
> inet addr:10.0.0.1 Mask
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 04/30/2012 06:14 PM, Augie Schwer wrote:
> I think you've all missed the netmask there, 10.0.0.2 is in that range.
>
> augie@augnix:~$ sudo ifconfig lo:1 10.0.0.1 netmask 255.255.255.224
>
> augie@augnix:~$ ifconfig lo:1
> lo:1 Link encap:L
On 4/30/2012 7:14 PM, Augie Schwer wrote:
> I think you've all missed the netmask there, 10.0.0.2 is in that range.
>
> augie@augnix:~$ sudo ifconfig lo:1 10.0.0.1 netmask 255.255.255.224
Netmask says what addresses are REACHABLE on that interface, not the
addresses assigned to that interface.
A
Thanks for the reply, please see my previous e-mail about the address
being perfectly pingable on that interface.
We run PowerDNS and Unbound with a similar interface configuration
without a problem, I'm sure Bind can too, I just need to know what the
special config. option I'm missing is.
Any he
On 4/30/12 2:56 PM, "Augie Schwer" wrote:
> I must be doing something wrong, because what I want to do doesn't
> seem that difficult.
>
> I have a range of IPs bound to a local interface:
>
> lo:1 Link encap:Local Loopback
> inet addr:10.0.0.1 Mask:255.255.255.224
This isn't a /
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 04/30/2012 04:56 PM, Augie Schwer wrote:
> I must be doing something wrong, because what I want to do doesn't
> seem that difficult.
>
> I have a range of IPs bound to a local interface:
>
> lo:1 Link encap:Local Loopback
> inet a
I think you've all missed the netmask there, 10.0.0.2 is in that range.
augie@augnix:~$ sudo ifconfig lo:1 10.0.0.1 netmask 255.255.255.224
augie@augnix:~$ ifconfig lo:1
lo:1 Link encap:Local Loopback
inet addr:10.0.0.1 Mask:255.255.255.224
augie@augnix:~$ ping 10.0.0.2 -c 1
PING
On 30/04/2012 23:56, Augie Schwer wrote:
> I must be doing something wrong, because what I want to do doesn't
> seem that difficult.
>
> I have a range of IPs bound to a local interface:
>
> lo:1 Link encap:Local Loopback
> inet addr:10.0.0.1 Mask:255.255.255.224
This means you'
Augie Schwer wrote:
>
> I have a range of IPs bound to a local interface:
>
> lo:1 Link encap:Local Loopback
> inet addr:10.0.0.1 Mask:255.255.255.224
>
> And I want to convince Bind to listen on sub-set of the given range (
> 10.0.0.2 for example )
You can't do that without hacki
On Mon, 30 Apr 2012, Augie Schwer wrote:
> I must be doing something wrong, because what I want to do doesn't
> seem that difficult.
>
> I have a range of IPs bound to a local interface:
>
> lo:1 Link encap:Local Loopback
> inet addr:10.0.0.1 Mask:255.255.255.224
>
> And I want
I must be doing something wrong, because what I want to do doesn't
seem that difficult.
I have a range of IPs bound to a local interface:
lo:1 Link encap:Local Loopback
inet addr:10.0.0.1 Mask:255.255.255.224
And I want to convince Bind to listen on sub-set of the given range (
1
19 matches
Mail list logo