Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 12:38:29 +0900 From: Yoshinobu Inoue <shin@nd.net.fujitsu.co.jp> To: dot@dotat.at Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Should jail treat ip-number? Message-ID: <19991110123829Z.shin@nd.net.fujitsu.co.jp> In-Reply-To: <E11lHwN-0004Nw-00@fanf.eng.demon.net> References: <22398.942136151@critter.freebsd.dk> <19991110022852N.shin@nd.net.fujitsu.co.jp> <E11lHwN-0004Nw-00@fanf.eng.demon.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > Then IPv6 support for jail should be very good thing, > > because extremely many IP addresses become available for > > a machine with IPv6. (which is not with IPv4) > > We have a number of machines with many thousands of IP addresses using > the patch in PR#12071. It isn't as general a solution as using a hash > table to lookup interface aliases (as in NetBSD or BSDI) but it is > much more easy to manage one alias per CIDR block than 254 aliases per > /24 (say). > > Tony. > -- > let it be dot at The patch is interesting and seems efficient, and same kind of fix for IPv6 might also work. But my point is that, on public internet environment where global IPv4 addr is necessary, there is another issue of actual IPv4 addr shortage, isn't it? Yoshinobu Inoue 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?19991110123829Z.shin>