From owner-freebsd-net Thu Mar 22 13: 2:16 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from cs.rpi.edu (mumble.cs.rpi.edu [128.213.8.16]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E831437B71B; Thu, 22 Mar 2001 13:02:13 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from crossd@cs.rpi.edu) Received: from cs.rpi.edu (bill.cs.rpi.edu [128.213.2.2]) by cs.rpi.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA25135; Thu, 22 Mar 2001 16:02:11 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200103222102.QAA25135@cs.rpi.edu> To: Jeroen Ruigrok/Asmodai Cc: Hajimu UMEMOTO , crossd@cs.rpi.edu, net@freebsd.org, crossd@cs.rpi.edu Subject: Re: gif(4) question In-Reply-To: Message from Jeroen Ruigrok/Asmodai of "Thu, 22 Mar 2001 21:44:14 +0100." <20010322214413.A5116@daemon.ninth-circle.org> Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2001 16:02:10 -0500 From: "David E. Cross" Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Why is routing done via the ::1 and 127.0.0.1 network addresses? I notice for "normal" interfaces it is bound directly to "link#2" and such. I realize I don't really know what I am talking about here, but, it seems that binding it to the link is more efficient than having it go through the loopback interface. Also, it will work in cases where the loopback is not defined (don't ask... just don't ask) -- David Cross | email: crossd@cs.rpi.edu Lab Director | Rm: 308 Lally Hall Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, | Ph: 518.276.2860 Department of Computer Science | Fax: 518.276.4033 I speak only for myself. | WinNT:Linux::Linux:FreeBSD To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message