Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2017 10:44:49 +0100 From: Thomas Steen Rasmussen <thomas@gibfest.dk> To: Eugene Grosbein <eugen@grosbein.net>, freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Changes to route(8) or routing between r325235 and r326782? Message-ID: <2b2e3b28-f29d-b507-cb81-801666ad4ddf@gibfest.dk> In-Reply-To: <5A2F8BC2.6000105@grosbein.net> References: <a4f1de3a-bdd5-f0d6-9019-4dd295b5e517@gibfest.dk> <5A2F8BC2.6000105@grosbein.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 12/12/2017 08:56 AM, Eugene Grosbein wrote: > On 12.12.2017 09:31, Thomas Steen Rasmussen wrote: > >> After upgrading to r326782 I get the following error when trying to >> delete the lo0 entry (I have an rc.d script to do it): >> >> $ sudo route delete 185.96.180.10 >> route: writing to routing socket: Address already in use >> delete host 185.96.180.10 fib 0: gateway uses the same route >> $ >> >> What gives? What do I do now? :) > You should be using jail+vnet in first place that allows you to get desired behaviour > by assigning an interface to distinct jail. Take a look at jail(8) manual page > for vnet and vnet.interface parameters. > Hello, Thanks, I am aware of vnet and it's uses. I am looking for the reason why the current method doesn't work anymore. :) Switching 50+ jails over to vnet is not something you "just do", the rewriting of firewall rules alone will be quite a job. I am also pretty curious as to what people have been doing to solve this over the last many years while waiting for vimage to become stable? Have people just not been firewalling between jails? Thanks :) /Thomas
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?2b2e3b28-f29d-b507-cb81-801666ad4ddf>