BIND copes just fine, how would it not? I haven't heard any
problems with routing daemons either.
Bind knows about multiple virtual interfaces; but we can also have
multiple addresses on a single interface and have no virtual
interfaces at all.
I doubt bind knows about this nor handles it.
<pause>
OK, I'm a liar -- bind does handle this. Cool.
Jan 8 01:09:12 tapu named[599]: listening on [127.0.0.1].53 (lo)
Jan 8 01:09:12 tapu named[599]: listening on [10.0.0.1].53 (lo)
Jan 8 01:09:12 tapu named[599]: listening on [x.x.x.x].53 (x0)
Jan 8 01:09:12 tapu named[599]: Forwarding source address is [0.0.0.0].1032
This is good news, because it means there is a precedent for multiple
addresses on a single interface so we can kill the <ifname>:<n>
syntax in favor of the above which is cleaner of more accurately
represents what is happening.
--cw
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/