>> 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" >-----|
andrew@echonyc.com (TheMan)        * "ah!  i see you have the internet
codewarrior@daemon.org                               that goes *ping*!"
warfare@graffiti.com      * "information is power -- share the wealth."