In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Yoshinobu Inoue writes:
>(1)It seems to me that once an IP# is specified for a jail,
> then that IP# should not be re-specified for another jail.
> Is this true?
Generally yes, although nothing in the code tries to (nor should
it try to) enforce it.
>(2)If (1) is true, then number of jail is restricted to the
> number of IP address assigned to that machine.
> Then IPv6 support for jail should be very good thing,
> because extremely many IP addresses become available for
> a machine with IPv6. (which is not with IPv4)
I'm not against adding IPv6 functionality to jail(2), my point is
merely that until somebody who has sufficient time & ability to
fiddle with it does it, it's not going to happen.
The usual rule applies:
"Great idea, why don't you send me patches which does this ?"
--
Poul-Henning Kamp FreeBSD coreteam member
[EMAIL PROTECTED] "Real hackers run -current on their laptop."
FreeBSD -- It will take a long time before progress goes too far!
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
