From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu Aug  7 06:39:22 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C566537B401
	for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>;
	Thu,  7 Aug 2003 06:39:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailhub.yumyumyum.org (dsl092-171-091.wdc1.dsl.speakeasy.net
	[66.92.171.91])	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9B3C43F75
	for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>;
	Thu,  7 Aug 2003 06:39:21 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from culverk@yumyumyum.org)
Received: by mailhub.yumyumyum.org (Postfix, from userid 1001)
	id 967FA173; Thu,  7 Aug 2003 09:38:43 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by mailhub.yumyumyum.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 9149F18; Thu,  7 Aug 2003 09:38:43 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 09:38:43 -0400 (EDT)
From: Kenneth Culver <culverk@yumyumyum.org>
To: "Michael K. Smith" <mksmith@noanet.net>
In-Reply-To: <004001c35c8d$f64fb9b0$40af9240@MKSSONY>
Message-ID: <20030807093820.S47519@alpha.yumyumyum.org>
References: <004001c35c8d$f64fb9b0$40af9240@MKSSONY>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
cc: webmaster@bmyster.com
cc: 'FreeBSD Questions' <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>
Subject: RE: Question concerning dual-NIC configuration
X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: User questions <freebsd-questions.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions>,
	<mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions>,
	<mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2003 13:39:23 -0000

> why would ya want to route lo1 127.0.0.1 to a 192.x.x. address ???
> seems to me that there are to many system side processes that listen or
> ocmmunicate thru that...giving access or routing that traffic to a
> internal address ...doesnt seem to smart to me.
> --
>
> I wouldn't; I was using that as an example.  I would want to create a
> second, separate loopback interface, much in the same way you can do on a
> Cisco and then route traffic across both interfaces to the loopback.  All of
> the addresses would be valid.
>
That still doesn't seem like something you'd want to do. It doesn't really
gain you anything that I can think of.

Ken