From owner-freebsd-questions Wed Mar 22 11:27:41 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from dt051n0b.san.rr.com (dt051n0b.san.rr.com [204.210.32.11]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F3A837C1B3; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 11:27:34 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from Doug@gorean.org) Received: from slave (doug@slave [10.0.0.1]) by dt051n0b.san.rr.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA80535; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 11:27:16 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from Doug@gorean.org) Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 11:27:16 -0800 (PST) From: Doug Barton X-Sender: doug@dt051n0b.san.rr.com To: Daniel Hilevich Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Loopback device and 127.0.0.1address In-Reply-To: <031701bf9407$5d000eb0$2e00a8c0@cwnt.co.il> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Never cross-post to both -questions and -hackers, thanks. On Wed, 22 Mar 2000, Daniel Hilevich wrote: > Hi, > Does anyone have an idea why after creating 128 loopack devices and > configuring lo127 to 127.0.0.1 (instead of the default lo0) I am > experiencing many problems in interprocess communication using sockets? > Are lo0 and 127.0.0.1 (INADDR_LOOPBACK) tightly coupled? Errr... Haven't you just answered your own question? While we all wish it were otherwise I think you've already shown that there are places in the code that depend on lo0 == 127.0.0.1. Good luck, Doug -- "While the future's there for anyone to change, still you know it seems, it would be easier sometimes to change the past" - Jackson Browne, "Fountain of Sorrow" To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message