On Mon, 11 Mar 2002 kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > I think I've seen something similar to this before, and IIRC it was caused
> > by the fact that loopback interface had been brought down.
>
> I feel this is 100% precise diahnosis.
>
>
> > If loopback has been taken down and is back up, IIRC the addresses of the
> > interfaces must be "refreshed" (e.g. by also taking the interfaces down
> > and up).
>
> Pekka, is it worth to graft local addresses back when loopback goes up?
> Actually, this is too easy and will stop the confusion, at least when
> loopback is not held down forever.
I think this seems feasible and should be done; if IPv4 and IPv6 worked in
a similar fashion wrt. this, the current behaviour might be more
understandable, but currently it'll just generate confusion.
--
Pekka Savola "Tell me of difficulties surmounted,
Netcore Oy not those you stumble over and fall"
Systems. Networks. Security. -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords
|