From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Apr 13 19:50:46 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3484E106566C for ; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 19:50:46 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from feld@feld.me) Received: from feld.me (unknown [IPv6:2607:f4e0:100:300::2]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F104F8FC08 for ; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 19:50:45 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=feld.me; s=blargle; h=In-Reply-To:Message-Id:From:Mime-Version:Date:References:Subject:To:Content-Type; bh=0QepNveyTldqGDHBDCe2YBygdwQqLwBCqsPW15ISLRo=; b=ssN+TyjHF09mi/5i8zmhGY7SNM6NFdLtdsCC+2+AiI2WM/54CSPqkXNi6qkgGr1NWHK2JwtcvXWKTff0A/or0QJPZ8gudbxL5Ry2xj7PrCHqtH5g8NAIHx3+M/fEspkA; Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=mwi1.coffeenet.org) by feld.me with esmtp (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1SImW4-000Pq6-DH for freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 14:50:44 -0500 Received: from feld@feld.me by mwi1.coffeenet.org (Archiveopteryx 3.1.4) with esmtpa id 1334346638-23734-23733/5/21; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 19:50:38 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed; delsp=yes To: FreeBSD Mailing List References: Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 14:50:38 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 From: Mark Felder Message-Id: In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Opera Mail/11.62 (FreeBSD) X-SA-Score: -1.5 Subject: Re: Changes in Jails from FreeBSD 6 to FreeBSD 9 -- particularly, networking and routing X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 19:50:46 -0000 Do I understand this right? Working in FreeBSD 6.x: interface em0: 1.2.3.4/24 <-- public IP, host only 192.168.1.1/24 <-- private IP, host only 192.168.1.2/24 <-- Jail #1 192.168.1.3/24 <-- Jail #2 With this configuration you had no problems accessing the internet from the jails. Is this correct? This seems bizarre; this should only be possible if you're doing NAT somewhere in there and that is not possible with Jails v1 (which share a network stack) and is only possible in Jails v2 (vnet).