Subject: Re: Is this a bug?
To: Peter Seebach <email@example.com>
From: Dennis Ferguson <dennis@Ipsilon.COM>
Date: 01/15/1996 14:17:10
> named cannot start when we have active PPP users. It fails because
> (apparently) more than one interface has the same address.
> Is this not legal? I was under the impression that it was normal to
> have the local end of multiple PPP sessions all be the "normal" IP address
> of the local host.
Whether one thinks this is "legal" and "normal" or not in general is
probably has a dependency on one's religious views about such things
(you can't configure p2p links on Cisco or Wellfleet routers this way,
for example, and the configuration can screw up host multicasting
implementations). BSD Unix has always allowed one to configure point
to point interfaces this way, however, so it is probably not smart for
named to assume otherwise at this late date.