Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 20:41:27 +0200 From: Per olof Ljungmark <peo@intersonic.se> To: Terje Elde <terje@elde.net> Cc: FreeBSD Questions <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: jail network configuration Message-ID: <55B7CCD7.4030006@intersonic.se> In-Reply-To: <FE61DE1D-1888-433A-A516-09B211EB178C@elde.net> References: <55B7AD6B.8060608@intersonic.se> <FE61DE1D-1888-433A-A516-09B211EB178C@elde.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2015-07-28 19:39, Terje Elde wrote: > On 28. juli 2015, at 18:27, Per olof Ljungmark <peo@intersonic.se> > wrote: > >> Is the following scenario possible (same network number): >> >> Host IP x.y.z.1/24 on physical port 1 Host IP x.y.z.2/32 on >> physical port 2 Jail IP x.y.z.3/32 on physical port 2 > > Like Eichorn said, it's possible to configure things like that, but > there might be some surprising results with regards to routing, and > traffic flowing from your host. > > Whenever I see a question like this though, I wonder what you're > actually trying to do. If you don't mind, it'd be interesting to hear > about which problem you're trying to solve by configuring it like > this. There's a good chance there could be a better way to solve > things. > > If it's about load-balancing for example, then (dependig on switch > etc), it could be a better idea to make a bundle out of the two > interfaces, sharing their bandwidth. Hi Michel and Terje, As stated, I had my own doubts. There is no problems to solve right now but more a question for future planning, good to know. Thanks!
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?55B7CCD7.4030006>