4 ms·
> Using 0.0.0.0 [instead of 127.0.0.1] is faster because you don't have to wait for a timeout. I'm not going to argue that localhost is better than 0, but that
by laumars 11y ago
> Using 0.0.0.0 [instead of 127.0.0.1] is faster because you don't have to wait for a timeout.
I'm not going to argue that localhost is better than 0, but that specific argument they've raised is incorrect. You don't have to wait for a timeout on localhost either. It will either fail instantly due to no listening processes on that IP and port, or it will connect to whatever process you have open on that address (eg a local instance of a http daemon).
- bcook 11y agoCan you more precisely describe why it is incorrect? Both implementations requests data from the network stack, so both are very similar?
- tkel 11y agoYou should raise an issue on the issue tracker.
- edwintorok 11y agoThey should also add :: to also block on IPv6, see https://gist.github.com/teffalump/7227752 https://gist.github.com/teffalump/7227752 Although if you use dnsmasq on OpenWRT with these hosts file beware that it can crash sometimes due to a bug that is now fixed in git: http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/pipermail/dnsmasq-discuss/2015q4/010026.html http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/pipermail/dnsmasq-discuss/201...