Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 02:18:36 +0900 From: JINMEI Tatuya / =?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCP0BMQEMjOkgbKEI=?= <jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp> To: "David E. Cross" <crossd@cs.rpi.edu> Cc: Jeroen Ruigrok/Asmodai <asmodai@wxs.nl>, Hajimu UMEMOTO <ume@FreeBSD.ORG>, net@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: gif(4) question Message-ID: <y7vofusqu8j.wl@condor2.isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp> In-Reply-To: <200103222102.QAA25135@cs.rpi.edu> References: <asmodai@wxs.nl> <20010322214413.A5116@daemon.ninth-circle.org> <200103222102.QAA25135@cs.rpi.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>>>>> On Thu, 22 Mar 2001 16:02:10 -0500, >>>>> "David E. Cross" <crossd@cs.rpi.edu> said: > Why is routing done via the ::1 and 127.0.0.1 network addresses? I notice > for "normal" interfaces it is bound directly to "link#2" and such. It's just a characteristic (or ristriction if you want to say that) of BSD's IPv4 routing on point-to-point interfaces. I don't know the deep rationale. > I realize I don't really know what I am talking about here, but, it > seems that binding it to the link is more efficient than having it go > through the loopback interface. I'm not sure what you mean "efficient" here. But using addresses to install a route to the loopback interface does not decrease the output performance. > Also, it will work in cases where the > loopback is not defined (don't ask... just don't ask) That's not true. In the BSD's routing architecture, if you want to install a route of a particular address family to an interface, you need at least one interface address of the address family on the interface. The address need not to be the well-defined "loopback address", though. JINMEI, Tatuya Communication Platform Lab. Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp. jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?y7vofusqu8j.wl>