Julian Elischer wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Oct 2002, Marko Zec wrote:
>
> > Julian Elischer wrote:
> >
> >
> > > 11/ why was ng_bridge unsuitable for your use?
> >
> > Both the native and netgraph bridging code, I believe, were designed with
> > the presumption that only one "upper" hook is really needed
On Thu, 24 Oct 2002, Marko Zec wrote:
> Julian Elischer wrote:
>
>
> > 11/ why was ng_bridge unsuitable for your use?
>
> Both the native and netgraph bridging code, I believe, were designed with
> the presumption that only one "upper" hook is really needed to establish the
> communication to
Julian Elischer wrote:
> I'm very impressed. I do however have some questions.
> (I have not read the code yet, just the writeup)
>
> 1/ How do you cope with each machine expecting to have it's own loopback
> interface? Is it sufficient to make lo1 lo2 lo3 etc. and attache them
> to the appropria
I'm very impressed. I do however have some questions.
(I have not read the code yet, just the writeup)
1/ How do you cope with each machine expecting to have it's own loopback
interface? Is it sufficient to make lo1 lo2 lo3 etc. and attache them
to the appropriate VMs?
2/ How much would be gaine
"J. 'LoneWolf' Mattsson" wrote:
> At 08:59 17/10/2002 +0200, Ruben van Staveren wrote:
> >Isn't this something that can overcome the current shortcomings of jail(2) ?
> >(the no other stacks/no raw sockets problem)
It should be possible even to run multiple jails within each virtual image, if
one
At 08:59 17/10/2002 +0200, Ruben van Staveren wrote:
>Isn't this something that can overcome the current shortcomings of jail(2) ?
>(the no other stacks/no raw sockets problem)
I've been tempted at looking into jail-ifying raw sockets as well, but time
has precluded me from doing so (and from tr
Isn't this something that can overcome the current shortcomings of jail(2) ?
(the no other stacks/no raw sockets problem)
- Ruben
--
,-_ ..
/() ) | Ruben van Staveren http://ruben.is.verweg.com/ |_o
(__ ( |M
