Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
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-security" 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>