Subject: [alpine-user] Additional loopback adapter

From: Matt Schwartz <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2019 12:58:45 -0400

Is it possible to define an additional loopback adapter in Alpine?

---

From: Marco Dickert <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2019 07:57:04 +0200

> Is it possible to define an additional loopback adapter in Alpine?

AFAIK, you can't. This is not related to alpine but to the kernel. But why would
you need an additional loopback interface? You could either use multiple IPs on
the existing loopback interface, or alternatively add some dummy or bridge
interfaces.

-- 
Marco Dickert
[email-masked]
https://misterunknown.de

---

From: Adam Růžička <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2019 18:46:24 +0000

Do you mean like on freebsd where you can have lo0, lo1 and so on? In this sense I guess no. But you can create additional network namespaces and each of those namespaces gets its own loopback interface. You could probably also create a bridge interface, set it up, add an address to it and use that as a loopback, but ymmv.

-- Adam

On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 6:58 PM Matt Schwartz <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
Is it possible to define an additional loopback adapter in Alpine?

---

From: Matt Schwartz <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2019 14:51:15 -0400

Yes, like Free- and OpenBSD. So I am guessing that you cannot do routing
domains and VRFs with Alpine then?

On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 2:46 PM Adam Růžička <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Do you mean like on freebsd where you can have lo0, lo1 and so on? In this
> sense I guess no. But you can create additional network namespaces and each
> of those namespaces gets its own loopback interface. You could probably
> also create a bridge interface, set it up, add an address to it and use
> that as a loopback, but ymmv.
>
> -- Adam
>
> On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 6:58 PM Matt Schwartz <[email-masked]>
> wrote:
>

---

From: Adam Růžička <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2019 19:42:33 +0000

I wouldn't dismiss it so quickly, I'm pretty sure it could be done with network namespaces and veth interfaces. But maybe someone else on the list has more experience.

-- Adam

On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 8:51 PM Matt Schwartz <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
Yes, like Free- and OpenBSD. So I am guessing that you cannot do routing domains and VRFs with Alpine then?

On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 2:46 PM Adam Růžička <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
Do you mean like on freebsd where you can have lo0, lo1 and so on? In this sense I guess no. But you can create additional network namespaces and each of those namespaces gets its own loopback interface. You could probably also create a bridge interface, set it up, add an address to it and use that as a loopback, but ymmv.

-- Adam