* Martin Pieuchot <m...@openbsd.org> [2016-11-09 11:55]: > On 08/11/16(Tue) 17:23, Claudio Jeker wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 03:36:22PM +0100, Martin Pieuchot wrote: > > > I'm not sure to understand the benefit. What's the use case for loop(4)? > > 2 name spaces, so that I don't have a conflict if I use lo1 for my > > loopback IPs and then later on create rdomain 1. > I'm afraid this would confuse newcomers. It seems to me that this is > just a bandage for people already using multiple conflicting lo(4) and > rdomains.
indeed. > I'd say just put your loopback IPs on lo1000 or lo42... But maybe this > should be discussed by people using that ;) I fully agree. Why? -the use of lo interfaces except lo0 is a relatively rare exception (heavy ospf/bgp/... users largely I guess) -picking a non-conflicting unit # for these few cases is easy enough -introducing a copy of lo just to split namespaces seems overkill -- Henning Brauer, h...@bsws.de, henn...@openbsd.org BS Web Services GmbH, http://bsws.de, Full-Service ISP Secure Hosting, Mail and DNS. Virtual & Dedicated Servers, Root to Fully Managed Henning Brauer Consulting, http://henningbrauer.com/
