Hi,
I am also interested about the IPv6 enabled jail
Best Regards,
Janos Mohacsi
Network Engineer, Research Associate, Head of Network Planning and Projects
NIIF/HUNGARNET, HUNGARY
Key 70EF9882: DEC2 C685 1ED4 C95A 145F 4300 6F64 7B00 70EF 9882
On Sun, 18 Nov 2007, Jan Knepp
Andre Oppermann wrote:
Ed Schouten wrote:
Hello,
It may be interesting to mention that yesterday there was a presentation
at the NLUUG (Netherlands UNIX Users Group) conference by Marco Zec, who
once wrote a patchset for FreeBSD 4.11 (and is in the process of porting
it to FreeBSD 7.x) that giv
On 16/05/07, Marko Zec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wednesday 16 May 2007 09:32:37 Chris wrote:
> On 16/05/07, Marko Zec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Monday 14 May 2007 22:47:57 Andre Oppermann wrote:
> > > Julian Elischer wrote:
> > > > Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
> > > >> On Mon, 14 May 2007, E
On Wednesday 16 May 2007 09:32:37 Chris wrote:
> On 16/05/07, Marko Zec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Monday 14 May 2007 22:47:57 Andre Oppermann wrote:
> > > Julian Elischer wrote:
> > > > Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
> > > >> On Mon, 14 May 2007, Ed Schouten wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> Hi,
> > > >>
> >
Chris wrote:
On 16/05/07, Marko Zec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
OTOH, even if we miss the window for sneaking this into 7.0-R, it would
be a huge pitty not to at least reserve a few additional fields in
various kernel structures needed to support stack virtualization. That
way it would be possib
On 16/05/07, Marko Zec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Monday 14 May 2007 22:47:57 Andre Oppermann wrote:
> Julian Elischer wrote:
> > Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
> >> On Mon, 14 May 2007, Ed Schouten wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >>> * Andre Oppermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm working on a "l
On Monday 14 May 2007 22:47:57 Andre Oppermann wrote:
> Julian Elischer wrote:
> > Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
> >> On Mon, 14 May 2007, Ed Schouten wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >>> * Andre Oppermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm working on a "light" variant of multi-IPv[46] per jail. It
>
Julian Elischer wrote on Monday, May 14, 2007 11:05 PM:
> Andre Oppermann wrote:
>> Julian Elischer wrote:
>>> talk with Marko Zec about "immunes".
>>>
>>> http://www.tel.fer.hr/zec/vimage/
>>> and http://www.tel.fer.hr/imunes/
>>>
>>> It has a complete virtualized stack for each jail.
>>> ipfw,
Andre Oppermann wrote:
Julian Elischer wrote:
Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
On Mon, 14 May 2007, Ed Schouten wrote:
Hi,
* Andre Oppermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm working on a "light" variant of multi-IPv[46] per jail. It
doesn't
create an entirely new network instance per jail and probab
Julian Elischer wrote:
Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
On Mon, 14 May 2007, Ed Schouten wrote:
Hi,
* Andre Oppermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm working on a "light" variant of multi-IPv[46] per jail. It
doesn't
create an entirely new network instance per jail and probably is more
suitable for
Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
On Mon, 14 May 2007, Ed Schouten wrote:
Hi,
* Andre Oppermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm working on a "light" variant of multi-IPv[46] per jail. It doesn't
create an entirely new network instance per jail and probably is more
suitable for low- to mid-end (virtual
On Mon, 14 May 2007, Ed Schouten wrote:
Hi,
* Andre Oppermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm working on a "light" variant of multi-IPv[46] per jail. It doesn't
create an entirely new network instance per jail and probably is more
suitable for low- to mid-end (virtual) hosting. In those ca
Hello Andre,
* Andre Oppermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm working on a "light" variant of multi-IPv[46] per jail. It doesn't
> create an entirely new network instance per jail and probably is more
> suitable for low- to mid-end (virtual) hosting. In those cases you
> normally want the
Ed Schouten wrote:
Hello,
It may be interesting to mention that yesterday there was a presentation
at the NLUUG (Netherlands UNIX Users Group) conference by Marco Zec, who
once wrote a patchset for FreeBSD 4.11 (and is in the process of porting
it to FreeBSD 7.x) that gives each jail its own net
Hello,
It may be interesting to mention that yesterday there was a presentation
at the NLUUG (Netherlands UNIX Users Group) conference by Marco Zec, who
once wrote a patchset for FreeBSD 4.11 (and is in the process of porting
it to FreeBSD 7.x) that gives each jail its own networking stack.
You c
You (Jan Knepper) wrote:
> Multiple IP's in a jail out-of-the-box would be great...
Yes, I hope it will be included in 7.0...
___
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any
Mohacsi Janos wrote:
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007, Jan Knepper wrote:
Mohacsi Janos wrote:
Hi Jan,
The problem with your patch is the missing IPv6 support.
I know... So what you are saying it does not work?
No. I am saying, that worth considering IPv6 support too.
Definitely... especially since
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007, Jan Knepper wrote:
Mohacsi Janos wrote:
Hi Jan,
The problem with your patch is the missing IPv6 support.
I know... So what you are saying it does not work?
No. I am saying, that worth considering IPv6 support too.
The drafonfly version already supports it.
I kno
You (Jan Knepper) wrote:
> Andy Hilker wrote:
> >Hi,
> >
> >You (Jan Knepper) wrote:
> >
> >>Any change this can be included officially at some point?
> >>
> >
> >Yes, this would be really nice. Especially because it would not be
> >conflicting with using freebsd-update (without an own build
Andy Hilker wrote:
Hi,
You (Jan Knepper) wrote:
Any change this can be included officially at some point?
Yes, this would be really nice. Especially because it would not be
conflicting with using freebsd-update (without an own build server).
Probably should be a configuration opti
Hi,
You (Jan Knepper) wrote:
> Any change this can be included officially at some point?
Yes, this would be really nice. Especially because it would not be
conflicting with using freebsd-update (without an own build server).
bye,
Andy
___
freebsd-hack
Mohacsi Janos wrote:
Hi Jan,
The problem with your patch is the missing IPv6 support.
I know... So what you are saying it does not work?
The drafonfly version already supports it.
I know... However... If you could get me a version of DragonFlyBSD that
supports amd64 I might consider switch
Hi Jan,
The problem with your patch is the missing IPv6 support. The
drafonfly version already supports it.
Regards,
Janos Mohacsi
Network Engineer, Research Associate, Head of Network Planning and Projects
NIIF/HUNGARNET, HUNGARY
Key 70EF9882: DEC2 C685 1ED4 C95A 145F 4300 6F64 7B00
Any change this can be included officially at some point?
I did not write the code. Just patched it so it would compile in 6.2
Thanks!
Jan
http://www.digitaldaemon.com/FreeBSD/FreeBSD/index.html
___
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://
24 matches
Mail list logo
