From owner-freebsd-security Wed Nov 17 15:26:55 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from schuimpje.snt.utwente.nl (schuimpje.snt.utwente.nl [130.89.238.4]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C1D414C1D; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 15:26:50 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jeroen@vangelderen.org) Received: from vangelderen.org (wit395301.student.utwente.nl [130.89.235.121]) by schuimpje.snt.utwente.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id D806628B2; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 00:26:49 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <38333989.9C4A0383@vangelderen.org> Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 00:26:01 +0100 From: "Jeroen C. van Gelderen" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Poul-Henning Kamp Cc: Yoshinobu Inoue , beyssac@enst.fr, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Should jail treat ip-number? References: <289.942825543@critter.freebsd.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > >-Jail(2) specify "ip_number" and/or "ip6_number" into the kernel. > > Well, I guess we want it to be "and", right ? Will people want to > bind both a IPv4 and IPv6 address (does it make sense to do so ?) > or will people only need to bind one of them ? What about multiple IPv6 or IPv4 addresses per jail? It might be a good idea while Inoue-san is at it. Or is this an incredibly stupid question? Cheers, Jeroen -- Jeroen C. van Gelderen - jeroen@vangelderen.org Interesting read: http://www.vcnet.com/bms/ JLF To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message