On Wed, 2013-07-31 at 15:46 +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 07/31/2013 08:30 AM, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > What I'm missing your email is a problem statement explaining what it is
> > you're trying to solve. The current implementation has been working
> > reliably for years.
>
> He did wrote it. 127.0.1.1 breaks because some daemon (many, according
> to him) bind only on 127.0.0.1, and not 127.0.0.0/8 as they should.
[...]
You can't bind a server to an address range, and there's the problem.
You have to listen on all addresses and then either immediately close
remote connections after accepting them (e.g. using tcp-wrappers) or
bind to device 'lo'. Both or which are more complex to implement and
configure.
Ben.
--
Ben Hutchings
We get into the habit of living before acquiring the habit of thinking.
- Albert Camus
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part