Erik E. Fair <fair@clock.org> wrote:

> Anyway, this is not going away, and given that, I still think that a
> hostmask for the NetBSD network code is a good idea if we want to
> support a lot of IP addresses on the same interface efficiently.

What I once did was to use the netmask field for this, and arrange for
the network to be routed to via the `real' address on a real network
interface. and for the virtual WWW network to be ifconfig aliased on
the loopback.

Erik's suggestion of a separate hostmask would allow the virtual WWW
hosts to appear (e.g.) on the local ethernet.  Are there any real
advantages in this ?  It really only becomes necessary when you've
got hundreds of virtual WWW hosts, and that's surely something that
you'd be allocating new networks for ...


-- 
Ronald Khoo <ronald@demon.net> Voice: <+44 181 371 1000> Fax: <+44 181 371 1150>