Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2006 18:14:23 -0800 From: "Ray Mihm" <ray.mihm@gmail.com> To: "Julian Elischer" <julian@elischer.org> Cc: net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: multiple routing tables Message-ID: <1aa142960603191814x3f2c5ee2s8868d939ccc0fc05@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <441E0415.2040908@elischer.org> References: <441E0415.2040908@elischer.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Marco's Zec's work IHMO is pretty good to be ignored. It can be adopted to 6.x pretty easily. I think having this in the base system along with jails makes it even more sweater and makes us a step ahead of zones (as in OpenSolaris). I understand it's an overkill for your requirements, but it's the right thing to do. Ray. On 3/19/06, Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> wrote: > I'm looking at a problem where I want onemachine to really look like 2. > this means I want to have 2 separate routing tables if possible. > > I know I could do it with eas if I could user Marco Zec's vimage patches > but I need to have a path forward to 6.x and beyond > > An answer would be to re-implement vimage for newer versions of FreeBSD b= ut > it's a bit of overkill and I was wondering if anyone had done anything > in this direction? > > Basically just allowing a jail to specify a different routing table > would be enough.... > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1aa142960603191814x3f2c5ee2s8868d939ccc0fc05>