On Tuesday 08 March 2011 12:39, the following was written:
And giving it 127.0.0.1 would tell it others to ignore it, I think.
Where did your user come up with this idea - clearly, they have *no*
clue what they're doing, and need at least a brown bag lunch about
TCP/IP, and they
Keith Keller wrote on Mon, 7 Mar 2011 15:28:55 -0800:
In CentOS, I believe that rc.sysinit will try to set the hostname from
its FQDN (or whatever you have set in /etc/sysconfig/network) without
mucking about with /etc/hosts.
Yes. I didn't say it wouldn't.
Kai
On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 12:10 AM, Robert Nichols
rnicholsnos...@comcast.net wrote:
On 03/07/2011 08:21 PM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
That said, it can be problematic when you ping $HOSTNAME and get a
valid 127.0.0.1 response, and haven't actually tested your external
port. It also requires
On 03/07/2011 02:22 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
Keith Keller wrote:
On Mon, Mar 07, 2011 at 10:34:24AM -0600, Sean Carolan wrote:
Can anyone point out reasons why it might be a bad idea to put this
sort of line in your /etc/hosts file, eg, pointing the FQDN at the
loopback address?
Johnny Hughes wrote:
On 03/07/2011 02:22 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
Keith Keller wrote:
On Mon, Mar 07, 2011 at 10:34:24AM -0600, Sean Carolan wrote:
Can anyone point out reasons why it might be a bad idea to put this
sort of line in your /etc/hosts file, eg, pointing the FQDN at the
Can anyone point out reasons why it might be a bad idea to put this
sort of line in your /etc/hosts file, eg, pointing the FQDN at the
loopback address?
127.0.0.1hostname.domain.com hostname localhost localhost.localdomain
___
CentOS mailing list
Am 03/07/2011 05:34 PM, schrieb Sean Carolan:
Can anyone point out reasons why it might be a bad idea to put this
sort of line in your /etc/hosts file, eg, pointing the FQDN at the
loopback address?
127.0.0.1hostname.domain.com hostname localhost localhost.localdomain
First, if your
First, if your host is actually communicating with any kind of ip-based
network, it is quite certain, that 127.0.0.1 simply isn't his IP
address. And, at least for me, that's a fairly good reason.
Indeed. It does seem like a bad idea to have a single host using
loopback, while the rest of the
Am 03/07/2011 05:49 PM, schrieb Sean Carolan:
First, if your host is actually communicating with any kind of ip-based
network, it is quite certain, that 127.0.0.1 simply isn't his IP
address. And, at least for me, that's a fairly good reason.
Indeed. It does seem like a bad idea to have
On Mon, Mar 07, 2011 at 10:34:24AM -0600, Sean Carolan wrote:
Can anyone point out reasons why it might be a bad idea to put this
sort of line in your /etc/hosts file, eg, pointing the FQDN at the
loopback address?
127.0.0.1hostname.domain.com hostname localhost localhost.localdomain
(Make sure you pick .dummy so as not to interfere with any other DNS.)
In theory you could leave off .dummy, but then you risk hostname being
completed with the search domain in resolv.conf, which creates the
problems already mentioned with putting hostname.domain.com in
/etc/hosts. (I have
Keith Keller wrote:
On Mon, Mar 07, 2011 at 10:34:24AM -0600, Sean Carolan wrote:
Can anyone point out reasons why it might be a bad idea to put this
sort of line in your /etc/hosts file, eg, pointing the FQDN at the
loopback address?
127.0.0.1hostname.domain.com hostname localhost
Sean Carolan wrote:
(Make sure you pick .dummy so as not to interfere with any other DNS.)
In theory you could leave off .dummy, but then you risk hostname being
completed with the search domain in resolv.conf, which creates the
problems already mentioned with putting hostname.domain.com in
Sean Carolan wrote on Mon, 7 Mar 2011 10:49:18 -0600:
Indeed. It does seem like a bad idea to have a single host using
loopback, while the rest of the network refers to it by it's real IP
address.
It doesn't matter for the other hosts, the sender ip address will always
be the outgoing
On Mon, Mar 07, 2011 at 09:31:17PM +0100, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
Usually, it's rather an advantage because
in cases where you would just get localhost you now get some meaningful
name.
You can use the bare hostname as an alias in /etc/hosts, which is
probably marginally better than using the
On Monday 07 March 2011 15:22, the following was written:
Keith Keller wrote:
On Mon, Mar 07, 2011 at 10:34:24AM -0600, Sean Carolan wrote:
Can anyone point out reasons why it might be a bad idea to put this
sort of line in your /etc/hosts file, eg, pointing the FQDN at the
loopback
On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 11:34 AM, Sean Carolan scaro...@gmail.com wrote:
Can anyone point out reasons why it might be a bad idea to put this
sort of line in your /etc/hosts file, eg, pointing the FQDN at the
loopback address?
127.0.0.1 hostname.domain.com hostname localhost
On 03/07/2011 08:21 PM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
That said, it can be problematic when you ping $HOSTNAME and get a
valid 127.0.0.1 response, and haven't actually tested your external
port. It also requires thought for configuring SSH and SNMP and NFS to
allow localhost access.
When you ping
18 matches
Mail list logo
