On 09/11/16(Wed) 11:41, Stuart Henderson wrote: > On 2016/11/09 11:55, Martin Pieuchot wrote: > > On 08/11/16(Tue) 17:23, Claudio Jeker wrote: > > > On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 03:36:22PM +0100, Martin Pieuchot wrote: > > > > [...] > > > > To add 127.0.0.1 properly it's another story as currently netstart(8) > > > > sets it. > > > > > > I would love to kill this part out of netstart(8). 127.0.0.1 should always > > > exists. > > > > I'm ok with that. > > > > > > I'm not sure to understand the benefit. What's the use case for > > > > loop(4)? > > > > > > 2 name spaces, so that I don't have a conflict if I use lo1 for my > > > loopback IPs and then later on create rdomain 1. > > > > I'm afraid this would confuse newcomers. It seems to me that this is > > just a bandage for people already using multiple conflicting lo(4) and > > rdomains. > > > > I'd say just put your loopback IPs on lo1000 or lo42... But maybe this > > should be discussed by people using that ;) > > I'm using that, and I think many people using an IGP will be too (you > want services - e.g. ssh, snmp, ntp, bgp - to stay working even when a > physical interface is down - and at least where the IGP is OSPF you > want those addresses hanging off an IFF_LOOPBACK interface, vether > won't do). I bet the majority of people doing this use exactly lo1.
Can't you use lo99 for that purpose? > [...] > Much of the diff would stand, but not the automatic interface creation. That's the whole point of the diff.