On 09/11/16(Wed) 16:29, Andreas Bartelt wrote: > On 11/09/16 15:11, Martin Pieuchot wrote: > ... > > Fair point. What about adding backward compatible goo to help people > > doing the transition: > > > > # ifconfig lo1 create > > # ifconfig vether0 rdomain 1 > > warning: lo1 cannot be used for rdomain 1 > > # ifconfig lo > > lo0: flags=8049<UP,LOOPBACK,RUNNING,MULTICAST> mtu 32768 > > index 8 priority 0 llprio 3 > > groups: lo > > inet6 ::1 prefixlen 128 > > inet6 fe80::1%lo0 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x8 > > inet 127.0.0.1 netmask 0xff000000 > > lo1: flags=8008<LOOPBACK,MULTICAST> mtu 32768 > > index 13 priority 0 llprio 3 > > groups: lo > > lo101: flags=8008<LOOPBACK,MULTICAST> rdomain 1 mtu 32768 > > index 14 priority 0 llprio 3 > > groups: lo > > > > Would this mean that a /etc/hostname.lo1 which configures an IP address for > lo1 in rdomain 1 would actually result in configuration of lo101 (in rdomain > 1) instead? I would find this quite confusing.
In your case you can simply /etc/hostname.lo1 you won't need it. > I personally never had any problems with explicit configuration of lo(4) > interfaces for rdomains until somewhere after October 9th - this was the > time when the actual behaviour of my previous configuration changed. What I > don't understand -- why is there a need for changing the way of explicitly > configuring lo(4) interfaces (beyond lo0) for rdomains? Because every rdomain is currently using lo0 which is wrong.
