Subject: Re: name service (does anyone else see this?)
To: None <>
From: John Hawkinson <>
List: current-users
Date: 08/07/1995 00:12:16
> > I don't think this brokenness is unique to 127.1, and probably happens
> > with just about anything you put there. Do you have any evidence to that?
> I don't directly, but there was a lot of discussion on the bind mailing
> list that I promoted to bind-workers, together with a patch to the BOG
> that resulted in the paragraph I quoted.

I vaguely remember this discussion, but I don't think that it outlined
any long-standing brokenness wrt 127.1, but merely that some implementations
Just Plain Lost (tm), in which case then you don't use it. There was a fair
bit of speculation in the discussion...

> If you mean to say that multiple "nameserver" entries are generally
> broken, I can assure you they aren't.  In fact my experiments to try the
> 127.1 hang just now explicitly prove that.

Err, no. Just that a lot of resolvers are known to break with them
(particularly in the case of host-up/named-down), and that I always
get infuriated when I find that swapping the order of nameservers
fixes the problem :-) If you want me to dig up examples, send me
personal mail.

Anyway, I think this is all hashed out:

	Don't ever use 0
	Use 127.1 if it works for you and your paradigm is that most hosts
		should look to themselves for their DNS lookups
	Use the primary interface if 127.1 doesn't work for you
	Use the primary interface if you expect lots of people to copy your
		resolv.conf file and want them to point at you and not
		themselves (why you'd want this...)

John Hawkinson