thanks, that makes sense. I liked Thornton's "virtual interface" better.
just needed to clear that up, since mostly all I've done is virtual
domains off a single IP (although recently I have been dabbling with a few
virtual interfaces myself :) )
thanks again
charles
On Thu, 16 Nov 2000, Todd A. Jacobs wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Nov 2000, Charles Galpin wrote:
>
> > Can you explain what you mean by virtual IP's? Is this one box with
> > 250 real (as in routable) Ip's? Why is that called virtual?
>
> Because the IP's are bound to an existing interface, rather than having an
> interface all to themselves. If you don't like the term virtual, feel free
> to substitute "IP alias" instead. Anyway, who could afford to put 250 NIC
> cards into a single box, even if you had the slots for it? :)
>
> The box is set up to bind a seperate server to each IP address, and to
> spawn various processes as if each IP address were running on a seperate
> machine. It works, except for the fact that tftp uses the "real" interface
> instead of the IP address of the parent process. (sigh)
_______________________________________________
Redhat-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
