Subject: Re: Why is ifconfig.ae0 better than hostname.ae0?
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Andrew Brown <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 04/15/1997 16:26:43
> From: Greg A. Woods
>>[ On Tue, April 15, 1997 at 11:31:30 (-0700), Ted Lemon wrote: ]
>> Subject: Re: Why is ifconfig.ae0 better than hostname.ae0?
>> 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.
>Hmm.... I *should* dig through this stack of books beside my desk to
>find the right address, but instead I'll answer from my failing memory.
start with the big red 4.4bsd book from karels/mckusick/bostic/other
and then move on to tcpip illus. vol. 2 from stevens. the answer is
probably in one of those two.
>I thought the short-circuit interface route was only necessary in older
>implementations (I have measured improvements on SunOS-4), but
>explicitly not necessary in 4.4 based implementations....
if someone can state "for the record" that it is not required, then
i think it can be removed. aliases, though, still seem to need the
explicit route added. it's as if the primary address for an interface
gets the correct treatment, but aliases don't.
|-----< "CODE WARRIOR" >-----|
email@example.com (TheMan) * "ah! i see you have the internet
firstname.lastname@example.org that goes *ping*!"
email@example.com * "information is power -- share the wealth."