From owner-freebsd-net  Wed Mar  8 20:35: 4 2000
Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
Received: from bubba.whistle.com (bubba.whistle.com [207.76.205.7])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C98C37B542
	for <freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG>; Wed,  8 Mar 2000 20:35:03 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from archie@whistle.com)
Received: (from archie@localhost)
	by bubba.whistle.com (8.9.3/8.9.2) id UAA79368;
	Wed, 8 Mar 2000 20:34:51 -0800 (PST)
From: Archie Cobbs <archie@whistle.com>
Message-Id: <200003090434.UAA79368@bubba.whistle.com>
Subject: Re: Netgraph and the loopback?
In-Reply-To: <200003081715.JAA92779@jchurch.meer.net> from George Neville-Neil at "Mar 8, 2000 09:15:40 am"
To: gnn@neville-neil.com (George Neville-Neil)
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 20:34:51 -0800 (PST)
Cc: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL54 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org

George Neville-Neil writes:
> I'm thinking of adding the loopback interface to the list of
> interfaces that come up automagically (like the Ethernets) with
> the kernel. Any reason I shouldn't do this?  I want it so I can
> play with the system on a laptop that sometimes has no ethernet in
> it.  Seems like a reasonable thing to do but...

That should work fine.. a loopback interface acts pretty much just
like an Ethernet interface but without the hardware.

-Archie

___________________________________________________________________________
Archie Cobbs   *   Whistle Communications, Inc.  *   http://www.whistle.com


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message