Hi gang.
As I was playing around with the mbuf code, and came across the loopback
device code (if_loop.c). Despite it's ugliness and shoddy code which
came with the KAME stuff.
Well, the problem is that it's not possible to compile the kernel when
you remove the loop device from your config,
On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 01:38:54PM -0500, Hiten Pandya wrote:
To conclude, I would like to see the loopback device made default, and
if this is not agreed upon, then someone needs to fix case when loopback
device is not in the kernel config, and is going to be loaded as a
module.
What is
Brooks Davis (Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 11:00:11AM -0800) wrote:
On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 01:38:54PM -0500, Hiten Pandya wrote:
To conclude, I would like to see the loopback device made default, and
if this is not agreed upon, then someone needs to fix case when loopback
device is not in the
On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 02:06:32PM -0500, Hiten Pandya wrote:
Brooks Davis (Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 11:00:11AM -0800) wrote:
On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 01:38:54PM -0500, Hiten Pandya wrote:
To conclude, I would like to see the loopback device made default, and
if this is not agreed upon, then
Brooks Davis (Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 11:15:16AM -0800) wrote:
Not to mention:
netinet6/{in6_pcb.c,in6_src.c,ip6_input.c,ip6_output.c,nd6.c}
What is gained by making loopback default?
Nothing is gained. But it's neccessary fix this, IMHO. Not to mention
that our loopback device code looks
On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 02:29:30PM -0500, Hiten Pandya wrote:
What is gained by making loopback default?
Nothing is gained. But it's neccessary fix this, IMHO. Not to mention
that our loopback device code looks terribly ugly anyway. :-)
I certaintly agree the loop interface could use some
Hiten Pandya writes:
Brooks Davis (Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 11:15:16AM -0800) wrote:
Not to mention:
netinet6/{in6_pcb.c,in6_src.c,ip6_input.c,ip6_output.c,nd6.c}
What is gained by making loopback default?
Nothing is gained. But it's neccessary fix this, IMHO. Not to mention
