Subject: Re: Why is ifconfig.ae0 better than hostname.ae0?
To: Scott Reynolds <scottr@Plexus.COM>
From: Andrew Brown <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 04/15/1997 11:14:37
> From: Scott Reynolds
>>On Mon, 14 Apr 1997, Andrew Brown wrote:
>> > From: D'Arcy J.M. Cain
>> >What if you have a standalone system? The loopback interface is always
>> standalone systems should be fine too. if you have no interfaces other
>> than lo0, then $hostname won't resolve to an address, will it? so the
>> command doesn't work anyway...
>Actually, a stock NetBSD system comes with the hostname set to `myname',
>which corresponds with a line in /etc/hosts, so it works just fine.
>I'm having trouble imagining who would use a hostname that they didn't
>even know existed, or why they wouldn't change it if they did know about
>it. Moving it inside the loop is probably more correct, at any rate...
yes, but my "stock" system at home doesn't have any network interfaces.
i don't have a network. (it dials in periodically, but i don't ever get
the same address from the isp so i can't use that). but i'd really like
to give it a hostname. what would one do in such a situation? sure, i
can give it a hostname, but that hostname won't resolve to an address and
if it did, that address would not be reachable.
unless i built in another lo device and ifconfig'ed it to something
other than 127.0.0.1...ick!
|-----< "CODE WARRIOR" >-----|
email@example.com (TheMan) * "ah! i see you have the internet
firstname.lastname@example.org that goes *ping*!"
email@example.com * "information is power -- share the wealth."