Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 11:00:02 +0200 From: Thomas Spreng <spreng@socket.ch> To: questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: jail Message-ID: <20030515090002.GA16590@rock.stable.ch> In-Reply-To: <20030515084310.GA76063@happy-idiot-talk.infracaninophile.co.uk> References: <Law9-F52ka4ZxNIeA8U000216c2@hotmail.com> <20030515071046.GA13951@rock.stable.ch> <20030515084310.GA76063@happy-idiot-talk.infracaninophile.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 09:43:10AM +0100, Matthew Seaman wrote: > On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 09:10:46AM +0200, Thomas Spreng wrote: > > hi, > > > > > 2) I am having trouble connecting jail to the internet. > > > here is an output of my ifconfig > > > harry@requiem:/home/harry# ifconfig rl0 > > > rl0: flags=8843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> mtu 1500 > > > inet 209.94.197.222 netmask 0xffffffe0 broadcast 209.94.197.223 > > > inet6 fe80::230:f1ff:fe44:9768%rl0 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x1 > > > inet 192.168.1.223 netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 192.168.1.255 > > > ether 00:30:f1:44:97:68 > > > media: Ethernet autoselect (10baseT/UTP) > > > status: active > > > > afaik, inet aliases need a netmask of 0xffffffff. > > Usually you'ld be quite right in saying that, but unfortunately in > this case I'm afraid it is not correct. The rule is that the second > and subsequent addresses from any particular netblock get a netmask of > 0xffffffff. In this case, where the alias address comes from a > different netblock to the original address (so that the alias is the > first address from that netblock) it gets the natural netmask as the > original poster showed. of course! you're right. sorry for the confusion :) cheers
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030515090002.GA16590>