Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 04:29:40 -0800 From: Peter Wemm <peter@netplex.com.au> To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk> Cc: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/net if_loop.c if_var.h Message-ID: <200101291229.f0TCTe450561@mobile.wemm.org> In-Reply-To: <20684.980771058@critter>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > In message <3A75602F.999E938B@elischer.org>, Julian Elischer writes: > >Peter Wemm wrote: > >> > >> peter 2001/01/29 03:06:32 PST > >> > >> Modified files: > >> sys/net if_loop.c if_var.h > >> Log: > >> Make the number of loopback interfaces dynamically tunable. Why one > >> would *want* to is a different story, but it used to be able to be done > >> statically. Get rid of #include "loop.h" and struct ifnet loif[NLOOP]; > >> This could be used as an example of how to do this in other drivers, > >> for example: ccd. > > > >The interjet has 2 loopback interface.. > >I can't remember why,.... but there was a good reason... > >archie? > > BGP, OSPF and others like to have a stable IP# for the router-id, putting > that on a loopback interface is as close as you get to an interface which > is always "up". Speaking of which.. I've seen quite a few places where they drop the IFF_LOOPBACK flag on the non-primary interface so that it "looks" like a real interface.. I think there is even a PR on it. I considered turning of IFF_LOOPBACK for the non-primary lo0, but decided not to this time. Anybody know anything about this and why this might be done? Cheers, -Peter -- Peter Wemm - peter@FreeBSD.org; peter@yahoo-inc.com; peter@netplex.com.au "All of this is for nothing if we don't go to the stars" - JMS/B5 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200101291229.f0TCTe450561>