Ok, not that I have interfaces showing up inside uml (2.6.15.6 didn't
work, but 2.6.16 does) I have another question.
is it possible to dedicate physical network interfaces to particular uml
interfaces?
I intend to run a half dozen uml instances on a box with 8 physical
network interfaces, each one on seperate networks. I would prefer to have
routeing disabled on the host entirely (the networks are seperated for
security reasons and I need to make sure that the host box doesn't open up
a hole betwen them). The ideal situation would be to configure the first
uml instance to use the physical eth0 and all configuration then takes
place within the uml.
is this possible?
the closest that I'm seeing in the docs is to have the host configure the
IP's for each interface, and then bridge to the uml's. but this bridging
seems like it would significantly weaken the seperation of the different
networks.
David Lang
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting language
that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the live webcast
and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding territory!
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=110944&bid=241720&dat=121642
_______________________________________________
User-mode-linux-user mailing list
User-mode-linux-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/user-mode-linux-user
