Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2016 14:47:02 -0600 From: Mark Felder <feld@FreeBSD.org> To: erdgeist <erdgeist@erdgeist.org>, freebsd-rc@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Suddenly: _IPEXPANDMAX Message-ID: <1455050822.3971641.516614250.014CA496@webmail.messagingengine.com> In-Reply-To: <7F5E86C5-C3D9-4FD3-866F-0B4CAAD54693@erdgeist.org> References: <7F5E86C5-C3D9-4FD3-866F-0B4CAAD54693@erdgeist.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Feb 8, 2016, at 22:16, erdgeist wrote: > Hey all, >=20 > I=E2=80=99ve recently (shortly after its EoL) upgraded my many-user-jails= -box > from 8.4 to 9.3 and noticed some of the jails failing to start. They all > had in common that their IP address was above a certain suffix. Their IP > addresses just were not configured on the interface. >=20 > After some investigation I found the hardcoded value _IPEXPANDMAX of 31 > in /etc/network.subr and that I basically can not run more than 31 jails > on my server anymore, if I am not willing to do some insane stuff, like > editing a non-user-servicable rc script or manually adding each IP > address or combining different schemes to add ranges (I=E2=80=99ve been u= sing > ipv4_addrs_IF). >=20 > Now, I find the arbitrary limit of 31 IP addresses cumbersome and even > more annoying that it=E2=80=99s not tuneable. The warning somehow also di= d not > properly find its way to my /var/log/messages, which leaves further work > for debugging. >=20 > I noticed this has been fixed in > https://svnweb.freebsd.org/base/head/etc/network.subr?r1=3D267812&r2=3D27= 1424 >=20 > Is it possible to backport it to 9.4? >=20 I almost want to call this errata... and I don't really see harm in backporting this. --=20 Mark Felder ports-secteam member feld@FreeBSD.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1455050822.3971641.516614250.014CA496>