Date: Sun, 29 May 2016 00:30:46 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: freebsd-jail@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 208001] After turning off the jail does not remove network routes Message-ID: <bug-208001-9824-kHE9fsBB6i@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-208001-9824@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-208001-9824@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D208001 --- Comment #5 from Jamie Gritton <jamie@FreeBSD.org> --- Yes, of course there are cases where something besides a /32 is appropriate= - that is why jail(8) allows that. However, as I mentioned it did appear that you had violated the specification that an alias should be on a non-conflic= ting netmask. The fact remains that I am unable to reproduce your problem. Perhaps I cou= ld if I had your entire configuration - all jails, all other network setup. jail(8) simply calls ifconfig(8) with "alias" to add IP addresses, and with "-alias" to remove them - see the output of "jail -vc" and "jail -vr". The jail will not be removed if the "ifconfig ... -alias" command fails, which implies that the command is succeeding. Unless of course there actually is= a bug in the way jail(8) is running this program. My guess is the command is succeeding, but isn't removing some arp entry because the alias when incorrectly specified when it was created. If it's clear (from "jail -v") that the correct ifconfig commands are being run, then this might be considered an ifconfig bug. If the correct commands aren't being run, then it could be a jail bug. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-208001-9824-kHE9fsBB6i>