On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 6:14 AM, Bretton Woods wrote:
> ps thanks
>
> http://noyaudolive.net/2012/05/09/lxc-and-macvlan-host-to-guest-connection/
>
>
Personally I'd stick with the default veth-on-bridge setup.
> --
> *From:* Bretton Woods
> **
>
> I have been th
ps thanks
http://noyaudolive.net/2012/05/09/lxc-and-macvlan-host-to-guest-connection/
From: Bretton Woods
To: "m...@wittsend.com"
Cc: "lxc-users@lists.sourceforge.net"
Sent: Sunday, 4 August 2013, 0:04
Subject: Re: [Lxc-users] local
system grows its quite simple
to hop from container to dedicated server.
From: Michael H. Warfield
To: Bretton Woods
Cc: m...@wittsend.com; "lxc-users@lists.sourceforge.net"
Sent: Saturday, 3 August 2013, 23:04
Subject: Re: [Lxc-users] lo
On Sat, 2013-08-03 at 22:23 +0100, Bretton Woods wrote:
> the answer is probably yes.
>
>
> is it possible to create a container without a network bridge that is
> on the same subnet as the host?
I believe that is what "macvlan" was suppose to be for but I never had a
good experience with it (o
On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 4:23 AM, Bretton Woods wrote:
> the answer is probably yes.
>
> is it possible to create a container without a network bridge that is on
> the same subnet as the host?
>
You mean you don't want the host and container to be on the same subnet?
Sure.
Just don't give any IP ad
the answer is probably yes.
is it possible to create a container without a network bridge that is on the
same subnet as the host?
In fact why do we always create a bridge and another subnet?
bretton
Just one of those thoughts :)--
