On Mon, 8 Jan 2001, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
> Bind knows about multiple virtual interfaces; but we can also have
> multiple addresses on a single interface and have no virtual
> interfaces at all.
> I doubt bind knows about this nor handles it.
> OK, I'm a liar -- bind does handle this. Cool.
> Jan 8 01:09:12 tapu named: listening on [127.0.0.1].53 (lo)
> Jan 8 01:09:12 tapu named: listening on [10.0.0.1].53 (lo)
> Jan 8 01:09:12 tapu named: listening on [x.x.x.x].53 (x0)
> Jan 8 01:09:12 tapu named: Forwarding source address is [0.0.0.0].1032
> This is good news, because it means there is a precedent for multiple
> addresses on a single interface so we can kill the <ifname>:<n>
> syntax in favor of the above which is cleaner of more accurately
> represents what is happening.
I've been using the new form for a long long time now and I assure you, BIND
hasn't had any problems with it for a long long time. :)
BIND as most all programs, should not care what the interface is or how it
is laid out. It binds to an address and port and shouldn't care otherwise.
Would I really put you in a quandry if I told you I had multiple different
media interfaces all with the same IP and BIND happily answered on all of
---NOTICE--- fwd: fwd: fwd: type emails will be deleted automatically.
"There is a natural aristocracy among men. The grounds of this are
virtue and talents", Thomas Jefferson [1742-1826], 3rd US President