On 03/07/2011 02:22 PM, m.roth@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > Keith Keller wrote: >> On Mon, Mar 07, 2011 at 10:34:24AM -0600, Sean Carolan wrote: >>> Can anyone point out reasons why it might be a bad idea to put this >>> sort of line in your /etc/hosts file, eg, pointing the FQDN at the >>> loopback address? >>> >>> 127.0.0.1 hostname.domain.com hostname localhost >>> localhost.localdomain >> >> Would the application work with a hosts entry like this? >> >> 127.0.0.1 hostname.dummy localhost localhost.localdomain >> >> (Make sure you pick .dummy so as not to interfere with any other DNS.) >> >> In theory you could leave off .dummy, but then you risk hostname being >> completed with the search domain in resolv.conf, which creates the >> problems already mentioned with putting hostname.domain.com in >> /etc/hosts. (I have not tested this at all!) > > And giving it 127.0.0.1 would tell it others to ignore it, I think. Where > did your user come up with this idea - clearly, they have *no* clue what > they're doing, and need at least a brown bag lunch about TCP/IP, and they > should not be allowed to dictate this. Their "idea" is a bug, and needs to > be fixed. It is the default way RHEL and CentOS setup up network connections ... and except for a few badly behaving applications, things work fine like that. (the hostname as 127.0.0.1) You guys do know that the names in your host file only apply to YOU on that machine right? It does not matter if you connect to 127.0.0.1 or something else UNLESS you specifically listen on a specific IP address on that machine AND you need to connect to that address from the machine itself. This is also the way to go if you are on DHCP and if the address of the machine might change. Remember, no machines except that one will refer to it in that way.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
