Remove lo(4) comments about interface configuration order.

[jmallett]

Summary

These comments seem archaic and also needlessly-worrying to your average admin who doesn't configure interfaces directly, but rather uses rc.conf and pals. Are these okay to remove, or are there actually implications here that need to remain present?

[zlei]

And for VNET(9) jail, it seems the loopback interface is always configured first.
The behavior is inconsistent with the host.

Then is it still reasonable for protocols that use the order of interface configuration?

[glebius]

The text comes from pre-FreeBSD times.

[imp]

This was in 4.3BSD:

The loopback interface should be the last interface configured,
as protocols may use the order of configuration as an indication of priority.
The loopback should \fBnever\fP be configured first unless no hardware
interfaces exist.

which is word-for-word identical, except for markup. It likely was true in the mid 80s, but I agree, it's no longer true or necessary. Mike Karels added it with the unhelpful commit message "warning about order of configuration" in 1986.

[imp]

Since Mike is still around, added him to confirm :)

[• karels]

I agree with all the comments above; I can't think of any significance to order of configuration of interfaces now. It might still affect the order of the interface list returned from the kernel, but most things that look at that list now process the whole thing.

I think the commit comment in 1986 was probably obvious at the time, when interfaces were configured by /etc/netstart, a locally-modified script (there was no rc.conf).