On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 05:00:02PM -0800, Jonathan Stone wrote:
> 
> In message <20041201000301.GA90340@gateway.pointless.nl>,
> Peter Postma writes:
> >
> >Hi all,
> >
> >I've posted this diff a few months ago, but now I'd like to commit it.
> 
> Why? What does it it buy us?  Multiple local addresses for protocols
> which (unlike IP) dont allow multiple addreses on a single interface?
> DIfferent MTUs on difference instances of a local-loopback interface?
> 

The reasons I want this are
1) no more static limits
2) regression tests for pfctl(8) uses it

I'm not sure if there are real world examples to think about where this
could be useful, but I'm not looking for a discussion on this...
The point here is that you now need to rebuild the kernel to add new devices
and this removes that limit. How people are going to use the multiple
devices is beyond the scope of this thread.

> If you're sure you're not just looking for a bikeshed to spraypaint
> your name on, maybe you could update lo(4) to document the change and
> the new usage(s) that it enables?
> 

Sure, I'll update it...

-- 
Peter Postma