Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 15:40:49 -0800 (PST) From: "Rodney W. Grimes" <freebsd@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> To: jeroen@vangelderen.org (Jeroen C. van Gelderen) Cc: phk@critter.freebsd.dk (Poul-Henning Kamp), shin@nd.net.fujitsu.co.jp (Yoshinobu Inoue), beyssac@enst.fr, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Should jail treat ip-number? Message-ID: <199911172340.PAA23345@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> In-Reply-To: <38333989.9C4A0383@vangelderen.org> from "Jeroen C. van Gelderen" at "Nov 18, 1999 00:26:01 am"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> 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? I don't know how technically difficult it would be to allow multiple IPv4 and IPv6 addresses per jail, but I can think of a few very good things to do with it. I spend a fair amount of time playing with routing protocols and it would be wonderful to be able to create jailed version of gated/zebra/rodscode on the same box and watch them interact. It would probably cut the size of my hardware lab used for this now in half or maybe even quarter it! -- Rod Grimes - KD7CAX @ CN85sl - (RWG25) rgrimes@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199911172340.PAA23345>