Subject: Re: lo(4) as a clonable interface
To: None <>
From: Peter Postma <>
List: tech-net
Date: 07/24/2004 16:51:58
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 01:24:19AM -0400, Andrew Brown wrote:
> if you can clean up the interaction between INET6 and loopback
> interfaces in general (i tried this once, but gave up because i
> couldn't figure out how to make the second interface not automagically
> get ::1 as an address), make the loopback interface non-optional, make
> the first instance (ie, lo0) indestructable (you mustn't be able to
> remove it), and have it be pre-created when the kernel boots (perhaps
> even in a general manner), this would all be cool.  :)

I've read about the ::1 problem in the archives. This problem
does not happen when I create new lo(4) interfaces. Maybe it has
been fixed silently?

The new diff ( removes the
loop option and includes it automatically when INET or INET6 is defined.
But I'm not really happy about how it attaches (we can't define mandatory
pseudo-devices? and would it be useful to add such functionality?).

I'm also not sure if everyone likes to go into this direction.

Peter Postma