I use the latter metheod...
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Overdrawn? But I still have checks left!
Generated by /usr/games/fortune
Jamie Chamoulos
Internet.Now!
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.efn.org/~jamie
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
On Sat, 8 Jan 2000, Rob Hudson wrote:
> Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2000 18:02:02 -0800
> From: Rob Hudson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Home Network
>
> On Sat, Jan 08, 2000 at 05:51:20PM -0800, Randolph Fritz wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 08, 2000 at 05:45:06PM -0800, Rob Hudson wrote:
> > >
> > > Reading the NAG is helping out a lot. I need to change some
> > > settings in each, like the hosts files.
> > >
> > > Do most people run 127.0.0.1 as their loopback, with
> > > 192.168.0.[123...] as their network?
> > >
> >
> > 127.0.0.1 is defined by standards as the loopback value. I don't
> > think 192.168.0.* is a valid network number; use 192.168.1.* instead.
> >
> > > I'm assuming I should use 192.168.0.[1-255] on one box, and
> > > 192.168.1.[1-255] on the other.
> >
> > er, no. For a network without gateways, one system, one address. Try
> > 192.168.1.1 for one system and 192.168.1.2 for the other.
>
> Hmm. On one system, I had 4 ifcfg-lo files, for the purposes of
> setting up virtual hosts for web testing, so each has it's own IP,
> and each IP mapped to a host for apache.
>
> On the other system, I had it setup up with a single IP, with apache
> dealing with each virtual host via the httpd.conf file.
>
> Which would be better to use?
>
