From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1RuatD-0005sp-6k for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 07 Feb 2012 02:34:39 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id CAD41E00AB; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 02:34:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83AB5E05B4 for ; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 02:33:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.43] (unknown [96.231.195.26]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 541011B401B for ; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 02:33:41 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <1328582019.8348.58.camel@rook> Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: only the loopback interface should provide net From: Alexandre Rostovtsev To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2012 21:33:39 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20120207014115.GA2683@linux1> References: <20120206210451.GA1940@linux1> <1328570113.8348.53.camel@rook> <20120207014115.GA2683@linux1> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.2.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Archives-Salt: 0567dff0-ee50-4ed2-9cce-a091e880ae31 X-Archives-Hash: 8332c1e22be1303c31568672605cc34c On Mon, 2012-02-06 at 19:41 -0600, William Hubbs wrote: > > My counterproposal is to > > (a) fix init scripts for Category 2 so that instead of "use net" or > > "need net", they only "use net.lo" or "need net.lo"; and > > I think it would be better if I provided another service these scripts > could use|need, because the loopback goes by at least one name other than > "lo" that I know of, and that is "lo0", so if I don't provide a service, > all of these scripts would have to conditionally use or need at least lo > or lo0 depending on which platform they are running on. Maybe a virtual service called "lo", provided by net.lo and net.lo0? > For the normal use case, I submit that category one should not care > about the loopback interface, since we don't make remote connections > that way. That would mean that loopback would not provide net by > default. Yes, that certainly seems reasonable. -Alexandre