Re: Network configuration file

[Russell <rjshaw@iprimus.com.au>]

Stephen Gran wrote:
> 
> > > Russell wrote:
> > I came to the same conclusion tracing thru those startup scripts.
> > It sure makes things confusing for a new user with old books that
> > refer to unused files that still come with a new installation.
> >
> > > Your interfaces file looks ok btw. What is it that you still need to
> > > configure?
> >
> > I'm just configuring to connect to ethernet with two other
> > computers. I was trying to get the route table to agree with
> > the books. When i delete the loopback:
> >
> > auto lo eth0
> >
> > iface lo inet loopback    <<< delete this line (loopback route)
> >
> > iface eth0 inet static
> >   address 192.168.0.3
> >   netmask 255.255.255.0
> >   gateway 192.168.0.1
> >
> > Then i still get the same output from "route -nv". Is the
> > loopback really implemented?
> 
> Well, to check:
> /sbin/ifconfig - try with and without that line.  I get:
> 
> steve:~$ /sbin/ifconfig
> eth0      Link encap:Ethernet  HWaddr 00:30:AB:1B:52:71
>           inet addr:192.168.0.4  Bcast:192.168.0.255  Mask:255.255.255.0
>           UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST  MTU:1500  Metric:1
>           RX packets:61826 errors:27 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:22
>           TX packets:78572 errors:45 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
>           collisions:0 txqueuelen:100
>           RX bytes:31593491 (30.1 MiB)  TX bytes:14395330 (13.7 MiB)
>           Interrupt:3 Base address:0x180
> 
> lo        Link encap:Local Loopback
>           inet addr:127.0.0.1  Mask:255.0.0.0
>           UP LOOPBACK RUNNING  MTU:16436  Metric:1
>           RX packets:1738 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
>           TX packets:1738 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
>           collisions:0 txqueuelen:0
>           RX bytes:87552 (85.5 KiB)  TX bytes:87552 (85.5 KiB)
> 
> You should see something similar with your loopback interface running.
> Note that many programs think of your single computer as a network, and
> use the loopback interface for communicating to each other.  Not having
> it running will likely break a lot of things, and I see no no adavantage
> to not running it that I can think of.

I've just been wondering why the lo loopback doesn't appear for "route -nv".
If i do "route add -net 127.0.0.0 netmask 255.0.0.0 lo", then this entry
appears when i do route -nv. Maybe it's got something to do with a newer
kernel and older tools such as route.