On 2016/11/09 12:55, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> >
> > I'm using that, and I think many people using an IGP will be too (you
> > want services - e.g. ssh, snmp, ntp, bgp - to stay working even when a
> > physical interface is down - and at least where the IGP is OSPF you
> > want those addresses hanging off an IFF_LOOPBACK interface, vether
> > won't do). I bet the majority of people doing this use exactly lo1.
>
> Can't you use lo99 for that purpose?
Yes, it's the sort of thing that people following OpenBSD development
can do pretty easily. (Here it's only 12 machines and it's a change that
can be made in advance so not too painful - though from past experience
it would be wise to restart ospf{,6}d rather than just reload config for
this change).
It might be quite painful for some isp or ixp if they only discover
about the change after upgrading a remote machine though.
> > [...]
> > Much of the diff would stand, but not the automatic interface creation.
>
> That's the whole point of the diff.
In that case is anything needed at all other than a doc change? "If you
want to connect to a local address in an rdomain, add an lo interface
to that domain". (I misunderstood it as things getting confused and
using lo0 when another interface should have been used.)
