From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7E3EF1382C5 for ; Wed, 10 Mar 2021 16:39:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 598F8E086C; Wed, 10 Mar 2021 16:39:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-gw.thundermail.uk (mail-gw.thundermail.uk [149.255.60.73]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 00E4BE0798 for ; Wed, 10 Mar 2021 16:39:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mailgw01.thundermail.uk (mail-gw.thundermail.uk [149.255.60.66]) by mail-gw.thundermail.uk (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 25EB6606801E for ; Wed, 10 Mar 2021 16:39:15 +0000 (GMT) X-ASG-Debug-ID: 1615394354-05541362accd490001-LfjuLa Received: from cloud220.unlimitedwebhosting.co.uk (cloud220.unlimitedwebhosting.co.uk [149.255.60.183]) by mailgw01.thundermail.uk with ESMTP id 6dl7xTcQxDGTKJKw (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 10 Mar 2021 16:39:14 +0000 (GMT) X-Barracuda-Envelope-From: confabulate@kintzios.com X-Barracuda-Effective-Source-IP: cloud220.unlimitedwebhosting.co.uk[149.255.60.183] X-Barracuda-Apparent-Source-IP: 149.255.60.183 Received: from lenovo.localdomain (230.3.169.217.in-addr.arpa [217.169.3.230]) by cloud220.unlimitedwebhosting.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 81A7DC73D2C for ; Wed, 10 Mar 2021 16:39:13 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kintzios.com; s=default; t=1615394354; bh=3urD8IDl9wAKhSg9+OuMQnHwA9rbtpuHGDIXqCUxI4Q=; h=From:To:Subject; b=Y3RqEBJsZHoboBwSrwo1E27N6u+ESR8op5oMkKYZKtfZpNv3FiJ3JL3yaDDPs7Alu i2TQKyQVU7Q81U97oASLywrmbr4L9XSEMt9YFPuO609lhEC3GEEGiNELFZwA2yjsPt nwkxxF4EK39E/buoHnb1Txs67oJf8yro1uLYeqww= From: Michael To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Why do we add the local host name to the 127.0.0.1 / ::1 entry in the /etc/hosts file? Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2021 16:38:59 +0000 X-ASG-Orig-Subj: Re: [gentoo-user] Why do we add the local host name to the 127.0.0.1 / ::1 entry in the /etc/hosts file? Message-ID: <3035421.5fSG56mABF@lenovo.localdomain> In-Reply-To: References: <65049b74-842b-0211-bbfe-35607c279a75@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <9854601.nUPlyArG6x@lenovo.localdomain> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org X-Auto-Response-Suppress: DR, RN, NRN, OOF, AutoReply MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart5594262.MhkbZ0Pkbq"; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-PPP-Message-ID: <20210310163913.2914117.45066@cloud220.unlimitedwebhosting.co.uk> X-PPP-Vhost: kintzios.com X-Barracuda-Connect: cloud220.unlimitedwebhosting.co.uk[149.255.60.183] X-Barracuda-Start-Time: 1615394354 X-Barracuda-Encrypted: ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 X-Barracuda-URL: https://149.255.60.66:443/cgi-mod/mark.cgi X-ASG-Orig-Subj: Re: [gentoo-user] Why do we add the local host name to the 127.0.0.1 / ::1 entry in the /etc/hosts file? X-Barracuda-BRTS-Status: 1 X-Virus-Scanned: by bsmtpd at thundermail.uk X-Barracuda-Scan-Msg-Size: 2051 X-Barracuda-Spam-Score: 0.00 X-Barracuda-Spam-Status: No, SCORE=0.00 using global scores of TAG_LEVEL=1000.0 QUARANTINE_LEVEL=1000.0 KILL_LEVEL=1.9 tests= X-Barracuda-Spam-Report: Code version 3.2, rules version 3.2.3.88432 Rule breakdown below pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- X-Archives-Salt: 2314b99a-36aa-48e3-ae60-674b808378bc X-Archives-Hash: 2760b3aa42b743419551ce77c106db5b --nextPart5594262.MhkbZ0Pkbq Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; protected-headers="v1" From: Michael To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-To: confabulate@kintzios.com Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Why do we add the local host name to the 127.0.0.1 / ::1 entry in the /etc/hosts file? Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2021 16:38:59 +0000 Message-ID: <3035421.5fSG56mABF@lenovo.localdomain> In-Reply-To: References: <65049b74-842b-0211-bbfe-35607c279a75@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <9854601.nUPlyArG6x@lenovo.localdomain> On Wednesday, 10 March 2021 16:00:19 GMT Mark Knecht wrote: > > > > mark@science:~$ cat /etc/hosts > > 127.0.0.1 localhost > > 127.0.1.1 science > > > I think this is relevant to DNS resolution of/with domain controllers and > may > depend on the AD/DC topology. The idea is to use the LAN address of the box > as the first address in /etc/hosts and use 127.0.0.1 as the second address > in > the file. If more AD/DNS servers exist in the network, then 127.0.0.1 could > be even further down the list. > > https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/previous-versions/windows/it-pro/windows-se > rver-2008-R2-and-2008/ff807362(v=ws.10)?redirectedfrom=MSDN > > I haven't over-thought this and there may be more to it, but on a pure linux > environment I expect this would not be a requirement, hence the handbook > approach. > > > It could very well be but I have vague memories when I first started > getting > interested in Linux, circa 1996-97 with Redhat, that I would buy books that > liberally sprinkled http://localhost or ping localhost sorts of lines in > the text and > examples. > > My undocumented (and unsupported by data) opinion is that this localhost > thing has been around a long, long time - possibly longer than Linux for > all I know. Check out > > http://acme.com > > I have no real admin experience with any version of Windows. Even though > I wrote, published and made a tiny bit of money selling a Windows program > written in Turbo Pascal in those days I didn't even have networking. > Everything was passed around on floppies. I always thought the localhost class A addresses were from days of old 'inter- network' era. The difference with 127.0.0.1 and a private LAN address is the 127.0.0.1 does not reach the data link layer, but loops-back at IP layer 3 and responds to any applications on the local PC. So, I understood this to mean it never went through the whole network stack, as it does when you ping a remote host. --nextPart5594262.MhkbZ0Pkbq Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part. Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCAAdFiEEXqhvaVh2ERicA8Ceseqq9sKVZxkFAmBI9iMACgkQseqq9sKV Zxnlrw//chD8pqBMqHd1xNPJuq7x4zYNJmJCGVL3RUpr+0Hutv5NYqSP4djZl3yD ZumU2huSW0BC0yPztfzAKXGJLPZgZp9SqNKnIAGDoMUYZuuVmb6Hza3EZvXU7KfT XQKiNGfkg8tnIh1EhA6u2ofcMvj8FAMI1Wxuvihv/cSZKMHoqdRbefPysA51Ikke yFYucXicBaHLXRk9Xrt4c8uOIafnXRAfVVk/CTBtoxZNuhIDxyRCrLXAwKOxMiYK /yDca5xMTxsXKvL8X5ipkS/d6zzVqyZ/DI9GnHkXKkd1S55/BRUZ0nZU2c04hj/u p9NxC3rDLD1dkZTf3mNk9ZThF0e+oOwt/KKYcHKUdWn7FqTnbQXbpGLjo4XnBqGV 23PsK947fFkM0pVU4884itdfm0hFWA39mc1NEpusHrZJ0taU8eqVIhBRFwphfRUp VTaHtpnFphU0FIgEggHz53rfeHWuzPb9+xePS5SSqz6wS7iS3UmQFkRlH7LSKZc0 vyWtO7C9jWGp/P6yTj0CQh1EjfsiO8S7CGNzgQmPMFG4Q+sM7TcNRGZx9r4jn5rA 3tUoDZyxm+hr50dmrXr9Oa9wC4Ynop13K+lKY4t66TrqoZtTLLMe8z8o+ebzYScW m6uQnfzYSnzgBDysrLoN6tfBliEhelxcwknCXBTM+x4BivawLes= =IRwd -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart5594262.MhkbZ0Pkbq--