|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
xen-users
Re: [Xen-users] Xen Installation without virtualization enabled in Bios
No there was no mistake in the IP addresses... My earlier reports of the DomU
and Dom0 being on different subnets was incorrect, they are on the same
subnet. I still have the same problem. I am unable to ping the Dom0 from
the DomU. I get "Destination Host Unreachable"...
Daniel Kao-2 wrote:
>
> Did this resolve your domU's connectivity? So the 3rd octect in the
> domU was incorrect? That would explain pings working from one end and a
> gateway that's outside of your subnet range which prevents outside
> connectivity... or something similar...
>
> Cheers,
> Daniel
>
> s@l wrote:
>> My apologies,
>>
>> Dom0 and DomU are both, in fact, on the same subnet. I forgot Im only
>> using
>> a 16 bit subnet mask, I noticed the 3rd subnets of the IP for Dom0 and
>> DomU
>> were different and made this mistake...
>>
>>
>> Daniel Kao-2 wrote:
>>
>>> I wouldn't be worried about the state listed by xm list. It's probably
>>> fine.
>>>
>>> "Eth1 on Dom0 and Eth1 on DomU are set to different subnets."
>>>
>>> This is the part I'm confused about. If eth1 is used for dom0 for
>>> connectivity, and eth1 is bridged between dom0 and domU and domU is
>>> using eth1, why are they in different subnets? If they are in different
>>> subnets (unless both are running down the same physical wire), you
>>> should be using a routed setup versus a bridged setup.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Daniel
>>>
>
> --
> Daniel Kao
> Übermind, Inc.
> Seattle, WA, U.S.A.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-users mailing list
> Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
>
>
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Xen-Installation-without-virtualization-enabled-in-Bios-tp18532312p18617087.html
Sent from the Xen - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
|
|
|
|
|