On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 04:59:18PM -0400, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 07:50:46AM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote:
> > 
> > Probably lo(4) needs bridge support, and adding that would be the
> > right thing really.
> 
> I think this is a terrible idea.  Why should we force loopback to
> emulate an Ethernet device just so we can bridge it?  It is not an
> Ethernet device and we should not pretend that it is one.

That's a point I can't argue.
It seems tap does the proper thing and my loopback idea was wrong, 
I never had really thought about the implications bridging had.

florian

-- 

florian heigl			 http://deranfangvomen.de/
"ja, ja, ja, ja, ja, oh, oh, oh, oh scheise. oh. oh fuck."
 -- the sound of a leased line multiplexer failing for the second time 
    just after things looked ok again (via a workmate at the phone)