WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-users

Re: [Xen-users] Unexpected (?) bridging behavior in 2.0.7/FC4

To: master@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [Xen-users] Unexpected (?) bridging behavior in 2.0.7/FC4
From: Marcus Brown <marcusbrutus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 10:21:34 +1000
Cc: xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivery-date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 00:17:58 +0000
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <3225.192.168.2.100.1127072232.squirrel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-users-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen user discussion <xen-users.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-users@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-users>, <mailto:xen-users-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-users>, <mailto:xen-users-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <E1EGxq1-0001el-K2@host-192-168-0-1-bcn-london> <3225.192.168.2.100.1127072232.squirrel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Debian Thunderbird 1.0.6 (X11/20050802)
Hi,

master@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> I've got 2.0.7 running on a machine with 1 physical interface and two
> bridges, like so --
> 
> bridge name     bridge id               STP enabled     interfaces
> xen-br0         8000.0040f4ce392f       no              eth1
>                                                         vif5.0
>                                                         vif9.0
> xenbr1          8000.feffffffffff       no              vif5.1
>                                                         vif9.1
> 
> Bridge xenbr1 does not have an IP assigned, as I want vif5.1, vif9.1 to be
> on an "untethered" bridge so it is isolated from dom0 --
> 
> [root@teegeeack ~]# ifconfig xenbr1
> xenbr1    Link encap:Ethernet  HWaddr FE:FF:FF:FF:FF:FF
>           UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST  MTU:1500  Metric:1
>           RX packets:47 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
>           TX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
>           collisions:0 txqueuelen:0
>           RX bytes:1860 (1.8 KiB)  TX bytes:0 (0.0 b)
> 
> If I run tcpdump -i xenbr1 on dom0, should I see all traffic on xenbr1
> (vif5.1 and vif9.1)? In this case the domU on vif5.1 has IP 192.168.5.8
> and vif9.1 has IP 192.168.5.9. If I run tcpdump on xenbr1 and ping .8, I
> don't see any packets. If I run tcpdump on xenbr1 and ping .9, I do see
> the packets.

tcpdump should show all traffic whether the bridge has an IP or not.
Can you tcpdump each vif and get a result that way?
Can you tcpdump from inside the domU and get a result?
I assume your network works correctly?
Perhaps check for overlapping subnets?

> 
> So, I suppose the question is -- is this expected? What I want is for the
> bridge to act like a hub, not a switch, but my testing shows it's not
> acting like either.

I don't understand your meaning.

> My intent is to use snort on a bridge without an IP assigned.

I think that should work.

> I've tried running tcpdump on the vifs in dom0 as well. Only the pings to
> 192.168.5.9 are captured. Am I missing something?

Make sure the vif's in dom0 don't have an IP assigned.

tcpdumping on each vif will show traffic to/from the domU it's attached to.


Marcus.

_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>