Mike Gerdts writes: > On Dec 3, 2007 5:43 AM, James Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It doesn't always work very well, which is why I generally recommend > > against /etc/netmasks. It may have been an ok interface 20 years ago, > > but with CIDR, it's mostly a defect looking for a place to happen. > > If using only a local netmasks file, it works quite well. I much > prefer to have one authoritative netmasks file per system than having > system administrators specifying the mask every time "addif ..." is > added to /etc/hostname.* or a zone is created.
Besides the look-up ambiguity, there are also the chicken-and-egg problems that occur when users accidentally configure the system to use NIS or some other directory service for netmask resolution. Trying to configure an interface using a service that's reachable only by talking on that interface doesn't work very well unless the protocol was designed to be used that way -- and NIS was not. In fact, at least inside Sun, it's a somewhat common way to produce apparent "hangs" on boot. > For configuring IP addresses on the typical machine bolted to a rack > or sitting on a desk, /etc/netmasks is quite manageable, stable, and > desirable. I much prefer DHCP or BOOTP for these cases. It's centrally managed, so you don't have to tweak each machine to have the right information, and it's standards-based, so you can integrate with other systems. Don't let the "dynamic" word in the name get in the road; whether the addresses are dynamic or stable over time is a matter of administration, not a requirement of the protocol. But it's your network. Even if I don't like /etc/netmasks, it's a supported, stable interface, and it's not going anywhere. -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sun Microsystems / 35 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677 _______________________________________________ zones-discuss mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org