Grzegorz Junka wrote on 09/04/2016 18:32:
Probably it would, I didn't try. Is this is the proper way of solving
this issue?
If I was you I will definitely use 1:1 biNAT. Because then you can write
PF rules in way without knowing the future IP assigned by DHCP. (you
will use interface name, not IP on this interface)
On 03/09/2016 15:49, James Lodge wrote:
Would PF and NAT not work for you? NAT to the WLAN0 IP (DHCP assigned)
using PF macros and have a separate subnet for your jails? This would
be PAT so you might have issues with accessing services inbound if
you're using the same port in multiple jails. Just an idea.....
_______________________________________________
freebsd-jail@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-jail
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-jail-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
