Hi!
> >> Why would it need to use the nameserver if I am telneting through IP?
> > Use telnet -N to avoid DNS lookups.
> Oh, great! That worked. It could connect to the web server jail
> immediately. So it looks like the problem is with connecting to the DNS
> jail, but why?
It's not the probl
On 19/05/2016 15:19, Kurt Jaeger wrote:
Hi!
Why would it need to use the nameserver if I am telneting through IP?
Use telnet -N to avoid DNS lookups.
Oh, great! That worked. It could connect to the web server jail
immediately. So it looks like the problem is with connecting to the DNS
jai
On 19/05/2016 15:40, Ernie Luzar wrote:
James Gritton wrote:
On 2016-05-18 09:08, Grzegorz Junka wrote:
I just tried telnet 192.168.1.50 80 from the main host and from the
10.33.1.40 jail. From the main host it works without issues. From the
jail it eventually connected after 15 or so seconds
James Gritton wrote:
On 2016-05-18 09:08, Grzegorz Junka wrote:
I just tried telnet 192.168.1.50 80 from the main host and from the
10.33.1.40 jail. From the main host it works without issues. From the
jail it eventually connected after 15 or so seconds of waiting.
That sounds like about the k
Hi!
> Why would it need to use the nameserver if I am telneting through IP?
Use telnet -N to avoid DNS lookups.
--
p...@opsec.eu+49 171 3101372 4 years to go !
___
freebsd-jail@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists
On 19/05/2016 14:50, James Gritton wrote:
On 2016-05-18 09:08, Grzegorz Junka wrote:
I just tried telnet 192.168.1.50 80 from the main host and from the
10.33.1.40 jail. From the main host it works without issues. From the
jail it eventually connected after 15 or so seconds of waiting.
That s
On 2016-05-18 09:08, Grzegorz Junka wrote:
I just tried telnet 192.168.1.50 80 from the main host and from the
10.33.1.40 jail. From the main host it works without issues. From the
jail it eventually connected after 15 or so seconds of waiting.
That sounds like about the kind of timeout I'd exp
On 18/05/2016 14:11, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
>> On 18 May 2016, at 14:00 , Grzegorz Junka >>
wrote: >> >> Is it possible to have two jails on the same host each one
in a >> different private subnet, e.g. 192.168.1.0 and 10.33.1.0, and
have >> routing between them working without issues? >> >> I
> On 18 May 2016, at 14:00 , Grzegorz Junka wrote:
>
> Is it possible to have two jails on the same host each one in a different
> private subnet, e.g. 192.168.1.0 and 10.33.1.0, and have routing between them
> working without issues?
>
> I know it's possible to run jails with IPs in those tw
