Re: [gentoo-user] Why do we add the local host name to the 127.0.0.1 / ::1 entry in the /etc/hosts file?

[Grant Taylor <gtaylor@gentoo.tnetconsulting.net>]

On 3/10/21 8:25 AM, Michael wrote:
> I think this is relevant to DNS resolution of/with domain controllers 
> and may depend on the AD/DC topology.

I disagree.  Pure Linux in a MIT / Heimdal Kerberos environment has the 
same requirements.  Hence having nothing specific to do with Active 
Directory, much less the AD 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.

Please elaborate.  Because I believe the following qualifies with your 
statement:

192.0.2.1	host.example.net host
127.0.0.1	localhost

Which is effectively the same as the following:

127.0.0.1	localhost
192.0.2.1	host.example.net host

Both of which are different than the following:

192.0.2.1	host.example.net host
127.0.0.1	localhost host.example.net host

Putting host.example.net and host on the 127.0.0.1 line doesn't 
accomplish anything.  And it still suffers from -- what I think is -- 
the poor recommendation that I'm inquiring about.

> 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-server-2008-R2-and-2008/ff807362(v=ws.10)?redirectedfrom=MSDN

What does the number of DNS servers have to do with the contents of the 
/etc/hosts file?

How is the contents of the /etc/hosts file related to the 
/etc/resolv.conf file?

> 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.

Apples and bowling balls.  /etc/hosts is not the same concept as 
/etc/resolv.conf.



-- 
Grant. . . .
unix || die