From owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Tue Jul 28 17:49:14 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@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 EEBDB9ACA34 for ; Tue, 28 Jul 2015 17:49:14 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from terje@elde.net) Received: from rand.keepquiet.net (keepquiet.net [144.76.43.178]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "keepquiet.net", Issuer "PositiveSSL CA 2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A45211A8E for ; Tue, 28 Jul 2015 17:49:14 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from terje@elde.net) Received: from [10.130.10.105] (cm-84.210.76.250.getinternet.no [84.210.76.250]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: terje@elde.net) by rand.keepquiet.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3F9016C1; Tue, 28 Jul 2015 17:39:25 +0000 (UTC) References: <55B7AD6B.8060608@intersonic.se> In-Reply-To: <55B7AD6B.8060608@intersonic.se> Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: FreeBSD Questions X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (10B500) From: Terje Elde Subject: Re: jail network configuration Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 19:39:23 +0200 To: Per olof Ljungmark X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 17:49:15 -0000 On 28. juli 2015, at 18:27, Per olof Ljungmark wrote: > Is the following scenario possible (same network number): >=20 > Host IP x.y.z.1/24 on physical port 1 > Host IP x.y.z.2/32 on physical port 2 > Jail IP x.y.z.3/32 on physical port 2 Like Eichorn said, it's possible to configure things like that, but there mi= ght be some surprising results with regards to routing, and traffic flowing f= rom your host. Whenever I see a question like this though, I wonder what you're actually tr= ying to do. If you don't mind, it'd be interesting to hear about which probl= em you're trying to solve by configuring it like this. There's a good chance= there could be a better way to solve things.=20 If it's about load-balancing for example, then (dependig on switch etc), it c= ould be a better idea to make a bundle out of the two interfaces, sharing th= eir bandwidth.=20 Terje