On Wednesday, 10 March 2021 16:00:19 GMT Mark Knecht wrote: > <SNIP> > > > mark@science:~$ cat /etc/hosts > > 127.0.0.1 localhost > > 127.0.1.1 science > > <SNIP> > <SNIP > I think this is relevant to DNS resolution of/with domain controllers and > may > depend on the AD/DC topology. The idea is to use the LAN address of the box > as the first address in /etc/hosts and use 127.0.0.1 as the second address > in > the file. If more AD/DNS servers exist in the network, then 127.0.0.1 could > be even further down the list. > > https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/previous-versions/windows/it-pro/windows-se > rver-2008-R2-and-2008/ff807362(v=ws.10)?redirectedfrom=MSDN > > I haven't over-thought this and there may be more to it, but on a pure linux > environment I expect this would not be a requirement, hence the handbook > approach. > <SNIP> > > It could very well be but I have vague memories when I first started > getting > interested in Linux, circa 1996-97 with Redhat, that I would buy books that > liberally sprinkled http://localhost or ping localhost sorts of lines in > the text and > examples. > > My undocumented (and unsupported by data) opinion is that this localhost > thing has been around a long, long time - possibly longer than Linux for > all I know. Check out > > http://acme.com > > I have no real admin experience with any version of Windows. Even though > I wrote, published and made a tiny bit of money selling a Windows program > written in Turbo Pascal in those days I didn't even have networking. > Everything was passed around on floppies.
I always thought the localhost class A addresses were from days of old 'inter- network' era. The difference with 127.0.0.1 and a private LAN address is the 127.0.0.1 does not reach the data link layer, but loops-back at IP layer 3 and responds to any applications on the local PC. So, I understood this to mean it never went through the whole network stack, as it does when you ping a remote host.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
