Subject: Re: Why is ifconfig.ae0 better than hostname.ae0?
To: Ted Lemon <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Andrew Brown <email@example.com>
Date: 04/15/1997 14:42:43
>> if we don't need the route added explicitly, why do we need it at all?
>I believe it's a performance hack. The lo0 interface has an MTU of
>32768, instead of 1500, and probably does less work on each packet.
is fo, shouldn't the kernel be checking to see if the address is on a
local interface and routing it more correctly (with the associated
mtu's and all)?
>> are inet addresses no longer going to be assigned this way? isn't
>> netstart supposed to be able to read the ifconfig.### files anyway?
>> doens't it "implicitly" know how to parse the file?
>Netstart doesn't need to parse the ifconfig.xx files - they are
>completely opaque to it. All it does is make sure that ifconfig is
>called once for each line in each ifconfig.xx file.
yes, i see that now. it's been too long since i actually read it. :)
|-----< "CODE WARRIOR" >-----|
firstname.lastname@example.org (TheMan) * "ah! i see you have the internet
email@example.com that goes *ping*!"
firstname.lastname@example.org * "information is power -- share the wealth."