Subject: Re: 0.0.0.0 Weirdness?
To: Dustin Sallings <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Skeelo <email@example.com>
Date: 06/23/1998 05:23:18
FYI here is a quote from the "Name Server Operations Guide for BIND".
The server-address's are aggregated and then used
as the default destination of queries generated
through the resolver. In other words, this is the way
you tell the resolver which name servers it should
use. It is possible for a given client application to
override this list, and this is often done inside the
name server (which is itself a resolver client) and in
test programs such as nslookup. Note that if you wish
to list the local host in your resolver configuration
file, you should probably use its primary Internet
address rather than a local-host alias such as
127.0.0.1 or 0.0.0.0. This is due to a bug in the
handling of connected SOCK_DGRAM sockets in some ver-
sions of the BSD networking code. If you must use an
address-alias, you should prefer 0.0.0.0 (or simply
``0'') over 127.0.0.1, though be warned that depending
on the vintage of your BSD-derived networking code,
both of them are capable of failing in their own ways.
The thing is this used to work... I was running 1.2.1 before and it was
working just fine for about 8 months, then sometime between then and now
(-current) I lost this (I'm not sure if 1.3 worked or not) feature. Just
one of the many things I found broken when I went from 1.2.1 to 1.3.x :(
As I said this is really easy to get past but seeing as it was working I
would like to see it working once more.
On Mon, 22 Jun 1998, Dustin Sallings wrote:
> > First, sorry for the cross post. But I'm not sure where this should be.
> > I'm running a -current NetBSD/mac68k (33mhz '030 with 36MB RAM) and would
> > like to see this resolved.
> > Has anyone else noticed that requests to 0.0.0.0 don't connect anymore?
> > I'm not quite sure when this started for me but I first noticed it when my
> > nameserver wasn't answering requests. I had "nameserver 0.0.0.0" in my
> > /etc/resolv.conf, that was easy enough to fix but this is starting to bug
> > me. If this isn't something unique to my system (I doubt it's just me)
> > then I'll be happy to fill in a pr with what little information I have but
> > if someone more knowledgable wants to file one I'll be happy to let them
> > instead.
> That doesn't sound like a problem. I don't think you can number a
> machine 0. Just use 127.0.0.1 for your resolv.conf if you're running a local
> I think a similar ``problem'' hit OpenBSD recently, where someone was
> complaining about not being able to telnet to 0. I would think that answering
> at the address 0.0.0.0 would be more of a bug than not answering.
> SA, software.net My girlfriend asked me which one I like better.
> pub 1024/3CAE01D5 1994/11/03 Dustin Sallings <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> | Key fingerprint = 87 02 57 08 02 D0 DA D6 C8 0F 3E 65 51 98 D8 BE
> L_______________________ I hope the answer won't upset her. ____________