telnet on local LAN question (progress?)

[Tim]

Tim:
>> No matter what anybody says, and despite the setup of Fedora doing
>> it, it's a bad bad BAD idea to bodge *anything* else into those two
>> local lines.  Sure, you can get away with it under *some*
>> circumstances.  But you can run into a hell of a lot of pain under
>> other circumstances.

Craig White:
> I'm not a fan of it either but that is indeed the way things are done.
> I'm sort of old school on this myself but Ubuntu does things
> similarly...
>  
> 127.0.0.1       localhost
> 127.0.1.1       srv2.azapple.com        srv2

Probably *less* of an issue, since they've not used 127.0.0.1.  Although
it can behave the same, the names and numbers are different, and
shouldn't resolve back to each other.  But if anything needs the machine
name's IP to resolve to an IP that something else will find it at, then
problems may still arise.

> I sort of decided to stop fighting it and go with the flow. It works
> fine.

I've always found it to be a problem with servers.  Mail servers being
one of them.  It seems less of an issue with clients, and I've just let
clients automatically set themselves up.

I'm yet to mess with IPv6.  I don't have a ADSL modem/router that
supports it, and last time I looked there were no consumer equipment
that did (only very expensive professional Cisco gear).  I don't know if
my ISP has got it working yet.  Many don't, and I've read no news about
the rest of the Australian backbone.  The only way I could use IPv6
across the WWW, would be if I had access to IPv6/IPv4 gateway external
to my ISP.  And since it's not there externally, it's virtually
pointless to use it internally.

-- 
[tim at localhost ~]$ uname -r
2.6.27.25-78.2.56.fc9.i686

Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored.  I
read messages from the public lists.