From owner-freebsd-jail@freebsd.org Wed May 18 14:00:04 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-jail@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16416B3F34B for ; Wed, 18 May 2016 14:00:04 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from list1@gjunka.com) Received: from msa1.earth.yoonka.com (yoonka.com [185.24.122.233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "msa1.earth.yoonka.com", Issuer "msa1.earth.yoonka.com" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B65C81260 for ; Wed, 18 May 2016 14:00:03 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from list1@gjunka.com) Received: from crayon2.yoonka.com (crayon2.yoonka.com [192.168.1.20]) (authenticated bits=0) by msa1.earth.yoonka.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id u4IE01Wb010854 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 18 May 2016 14:00:01 GMT (envelope-from list1@gjunka.com) To: freebsd-jail@freebsd.org From: Grzegorz Junka Subject: jails in different private subnets on the same host Message-ID: Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 14:00:01 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-jail@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion about FreeBSD jail\(8\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 14:00:04 -0000 Is it possible to have two jails on the same host each one in a different private subnet, e.g. 192.168.1.0 and 10.33.1.0, and have routing between them working without issues? I know it's possible to run jails with IPs in those two subnets but it seems there is no routing and I am not sure if it's because I can't configure my router properly or there is a more fundamental problem. One issue I see is that the jail can't have a different default gateway than the host, and that for now is 192.168.1.1, but I don't see a reason why 10.33.1.0 wouldn't be able to use 192.168.1.1 as it's default gateway provided there is routing between those two subnets. Grzegorz