On 11/09/16 16:43, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
On 09/11/16(Wed) 16:29, Andreas Bartelt wrote:
On 11/09/16 15:11, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
...
Fair point. What about adding backward compatible goo to help people
doing the transition:
# ifconfig lo1 create
# ifconfig vether0 rdomain 1
warning: lo1 cannot be used for rdomain 1
# ifconfig lo
lo0: flags=8049<UP,LOOPBACK,RUNNING,MULTICAST> mtu 32768
index 8 priority 0 llprio 3
groups: lo
inet6 ::1 prefixlen 128
inet6 fe80::1%lo0 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x8
inet 127.0.0.1 netmask 0xff000000
lo1: flags=8008<LOOPBACK,MULTICAST> mtu 32768
index 13 priority 0 llprio 3
groups: lo
lo101: flags=8008<LOOPBACK,MULTICAST> rdomain 1 mtu 32768
index 14 priority 0 llprio 3
groups: lo
Would this mean that a /etc/hostname.lo1 which configures an IP address for
lo1 in rdomain 1 would actually result in configuration of lo101 (in rdomain
1) instead? I would find this quite confusing.
In your case you can simply /etc/hostname.lo1 you won't need it.
I'm actually not using 127.0.0.1 as IP address on lo1 in my specific
setup -- I'm using the same LAN-visible IP address which unbound listens
on in rdomain 0 (due to the nameserver IP entries in /etc/resolv.conf
which, by design, are used for all rdomains). Because of this, I suppose
I would then still need to explicitly configure this IP alias for lo1 in
rdomain 1 (i.e., via /etc/hostname.lo1). Alternatively, would it make
sense to explicitly create a second lo(4) interface for rdomain 1 with
this IP address?
I personally never had any problems with explicit configuration of lo(4)
interfaces for rdomains until somewhere after October 9th - this was the
time when the actual behaviour of my previous configuration changed. What I
don't understand -- why is there a need for changing the way of explicitly
configuring lo(4) interfaces (beyond lo0) for rdomains?
Because every rdomain is currently using lo0 which is wrong.
thx, this explains why my pf rules for lo0 were previously also
effectively applied to lo1.
