On Fri, Feb 24, 2006 at 09:59:23PM +0100, joerg@britannica.bec.de wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 24, 2006 at 03:54:40PM -0500, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
> > If you got such an example from the FreeBSD handbook, it's quite simply
> > wrong.  You should tell the maintainers so they can fix it.
> > 
> > You can configure additional host addresses on lo0 with a /32 netmask
> > if you wish.
> 
> Please be careful when speaking about other systems. Configuring the
> aliases with /32 on the target interface is the correct way for FreeBSD.
> Configuring them on lo0 does *not* work on FreeBSD.

If it doesn't work, with the appropriate route, I think I would require
quite some persuading to see why that's not a bug.  Similarly, I am
very skeptical that configuring them with an overlapping netmask on
the same interface, if it does not, for example, cause broadcasts to
go to the host address in some cases, is not a bug.  Finally, I can
only register my amazement at the implication that someone broke
FreeBSD's routing or input code such that configuring them on the same
interface with the _same_ netmask no longer works.  Are all these things
true?

-- 
  Thor Lancelot Simon	                                     tls@rek.tjls.com

  "We cannot usually in social life pursue a single value or a single moral
   aim, untroubled by the need to compromise with others."      - H.L.A. Hart