From owner-freebsd-virtualization@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Dec 4 17:05:30 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE9C8106566B for ; Fri, 4 Dec 2009 17:05:30 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from nvass9573@gmx.com) Received: from mailout-eu.gmx.com (mailout-eu.gmx.com [213.165.64.42]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2F05D8FC15 for ; Fri, 4 Dec 2009 17:05:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 04 Dec 2009 17:05:28 -0000 Received: from adsl-252.91.140.44.tellas.gr (EHLO [169.254.0.102]) [91.140.44.252] by mail.gmx.com (mp-eu002) with SMTP; 04 Dec 2009 18:05:28 +0100 X-Authenticated: #46156728 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/T25BbF/vTM0Vq1VL5Cp7KLbQMLsxbo+IpXnKelk U2N2/LTTa3PmM0 Message-ID: <4B19413B.9090902@gmx.com> Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2009 19:04:59 +0200 From: Nikos Vassiliadis User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Julian Elischer References: <66313f8d0912020817x5839715ake916804d61dea730@mail.gmail.com> <20091202224841.O83957@maildrop.int.zabbadoz.net> <66313f8d0912030616h691b149ay64dac79214336c45@mail.gmail.com> <4B1803A0.6000403@elischer.org> <4B192D38.6020309@gmx.com> <4B193BC5.9040707@elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <4B193BC5.9040707@elischer.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-FuHaFi: 0.6899999999999999 Cc: FreeBSD virtualization mailing list Subject: Re: ppp in vimages? X-BeenThere: freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion of various virtualization techniques FreeBSD supports." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2009 17:05:30 -0000 Julian Elischer wrote: > we would expect it to work the way you wish but it appears that we have > left that out in oversight. > > We'll see what we can do.. > > (remember in 8.0 vimage is just s technology review feature and you > should not be trying to use it in production.) > I'll look at what it will take to fix this by 8.1 :-) Thanks a lot! Completely irrelevant to this thread, but is there any in-kernel NAT mechanism that is known to work with vnets at this time? I was trying to use ng_nat, but it seems that it fails for probably similar reasons. Nikos