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

[Xen-users] arp who-has not answered

To: xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Xen-users] arp who-has not answered
From: Carles Pina i Estany <carles@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 19:22:56 +0100
Delivery-date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 11:23:33 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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>
Sender: xen-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01)
Hello,

Fast question: from DomU I cannot ping Dom0, I only get 
19:17:33.573370 arp who-has 192.168.10.1 tell 192.168.10.150
19:17:34.573421 arp who-has 192.168.10.1 tell 192.168.10.150

using tcpdump in Dom0. Why?

---------------
Detailed question:

I'm setting up a Xen virtual server. The environment is:
-HVM
-AMD64
-Debian Etch and using Xen from Debian repository (so Xen 3.0.3, quite
old but enough for my basic things)
-Network has route way

I have been here asking some things and it's "mainly" working :-)
(thanks Max) Let me only to re-write the current situation. I did some
tests but I will not describe all of them (I could write a book about
"how to NOT setup a Xen" :-D)

/etc/xen/xend-config.sxp
------------
(logfile /var/log/xen/xend.log)
(loglevel DEBUG)
(network-script network-route)
(vif-script     vif-route2)
-------------
vif-route2 is the sam than vif-route changin $main_ip by $ip in ifconfig
and "cmdprefix ip route" lines

The machine.cfg file is:
------------
kernel='/usr/lib64/xen-3.0.3-1/boot/hvmloader'
builder='hvm'
device_model='/usr/lib64/xen-3.0.3-1/bin/qemu-dm'
memory=256
name='chronojump'
vif = [ 'ip=192.168.10.0, type=ioemu, mac=22:16:3e:00:00:11' ]
disk=['file:/home/xen/domains/chronojump/root,hda,w','file:/home/xen/domains/debian-etch.iso,hdc:cdrom,r']
boot='c'
vnc=1
vncviewer=1
sdl=0
vncpasswd=''
stdvga=0
pae=1
------------

My Dom0 eth0 IP is 192.168.0.1
My DomU eth0 IP is 192.168.10.150

After create the virtual machine, the network status in Dom0 is:
vif49.0   Link encap:Ethernet  HWaddr FE:FF:FF:FF:FF:FF  
          inet addr:192.168.10.0  Bcast:192.168.10.255  Mask:255.255.255.255
          UP BROADCAST MULTICAST  MTU:1500  Metric:1
          RX packets:0 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:0 (0.0 b)  TX bytes:0 (0.0 b)

(is it correct or I should set up a real IP address? I'm very confused here)

tap0: I setup the 192.168.10.1 address (ifconfig tap0 192.168.10.1):

>From DomU, if I ping 192.168.10.1 ping says "Destination Host Unreacahble",
and I can sniff in Dom0:

servidor:~# tcpdump -i tap0
tcpdump: verbose output suppressed, use -v or -vv for full protocol decode
listening on tap0, link-type EN10MB (Ethernet), capture size 96 bytes
19:17:33.573370 arp who-has 192.168.10.1 tell 192.168.10.150
19:17:34.573421 arp who-has 192.168.10.1 tell 192.168.10.150
19:17:35.573471 arp who-has 192.168.10.1 tell 192.168.10.150

Nothing in vif49.0 interface.

I have a xenbr0 (else xm create fails), right now I have:
---------
servidor:~# brctl show
bridge name     bridge id               STP enabled     interfaces
xenbr0          8000.fae2d7fe3bd5       no              tap0
servidor:~# 
---------

Yesterday I added eth0 in xenbr0 bridge (or vif49.0) but nothing happened.

Parts of ip route:
192.168.10.0 dev vif49.0  scope link  src 192.168.10.0 
192.168.10.0/24 dev tap0  proto kernel  scope link  src 192.168.10.1 
192.168.0.0/24 dev eth0  proto kernel  scope link  src 192.168.0.1 

Ok, I don't like that two interfaces (vif49.0 and tap0) has the same network! 
But which is the correct way? I'm not sure (and my tests has not gone very well)

Another things: iptables is not a problem for sure, and I also did:
echo 1 >/proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward
echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf/eth0/proxy_arp
echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf/tan0/proxy_arp

Thank you very much!

-- 
Carles Pina i Estany            GPG id: 0x8CBDAE64
        http://pinux.info       Manresa - Barcelona

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

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