On Fri, 22 Feb 2008, Adrian Knoth wrote:
> I see three approaches:
> a) remove lo globally (in if.c). I expect objections. ;)
I object! :). But for a good reason -- it'll break things. Someone
tried this before, and the issue is when a node (like a laptop) only has
lo -- then there are no reported interfaces, and either there needs to be
lots of extra code in the oob / btl or things break. So let's not go down
this path again.
> b) print a warning from BTL/TCP if the interfaces in use contain lo.
> Like "Warning: You've included the loopback for communication.
> This may cause hanging processes due to unreachable peers."
I like this one.
> c) Throw away 127.0.0.1 on the remote side. But when doing so, what's
> the use for including it at all?
This seems hard.