Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2012 01:29:25 -0600 From: "Chad Leigh Shire.Net LLC" <chad@shire.net> To: FreeBSD Mailing List <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Changes in Jails from FreeBSD 6 to FreeBSD 9 -- particularly, networking and routing Message-ID: <61C8BD2B-9C1B-4494-A1BA-394752042F23@shire.net> In-Reply-To: <op.wcp7f4kr34t2sn@cr48.lan> References: <BCF3FB8D-7FF0-4CB4-8491-6472EDED96B2@shire.net> <op.wcpyqodb34t2sn@tech304> <FEED68A4-0C10-4057-B37B-EEA780977F25@shire.net> <op.wcp7f4kr34t2sn@cr48.lan>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Apr 13, 2012, at 4:58 PM, Mark Felder wrote: > On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 15:53:49 -0500, Chad Leigh Shire.Net LLC = <chad@shire.net> wrote: >=20 >> No NAT needed since they share the network stack under Jails v1 they = share the routing tables. It works. Try it. >=20 > You're clearly exploiting a bug in FreeBSD 6's jails. It was a documented behavior when I first started using jails ca. 2004 = in FreeBSD 5. Which is why I did it that way.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?61C8BD2B-9C1B-4494-A1BA-394752042F23>