Ok I will try to answer but I am not an expert of this subject.
I see from brctl show output Spanning Tree Protocol is enabled can you
set it to no and then check the same.
Is the behavior same in case STP is disabled.
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 4:06 PM, JohnD <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Tapas,
>
> Thanks for your reply. The problem I have is that both the physical
> server and the virtual instances appear on the network and then, with
> some amount of idle time, disappear.
>
> For example, I sent my original question last night (from North America)
> and I was able to get to both the physical servers and the virtual
> instances. However, this morning, I received "no route to host" on the
> physical server and after about 10 minutes (repeated pings with
> "Destination Host Unreachable") was able to log into it again - meaning,
> it came back online.
>
> At any rate, here are the results of the command:
>
> # brctl show
> bridge name bridge id STP enabled interfaces
> virbr0 8000.000000000000 yes
> xenbr0 8000.feffffffffff no vif2.0
> vif1.0
> peth0
> vif0.0
>
> Thanks,
> John
>
> On Mon, 2010-06-14 at 10:05 +0530, Tapas Mishra wrote:
>> I am not able to understand problem from your message
>> correct me if I am wrong.
>> Your DomU seems to not reply to ping when you are booting it up.
>> Or after DomU is up it drops packets suddenly while it was replying to ping.
>> Give the output of brctl show.
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 4:54 AM, JohnD <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > I have Xen 3.0.3 installed on CentOS 5.5 with 2 paravirtualized domU's
>> > configured to use the default bridge networking and am having networking
>> > issues. If I boot the computer fresh I am able to ping dom0 and can SSH
>> > into it and start the domU's.
>> >
>> > The following ping snippet demonstrates the problem. The first group of
>> > "Destination Host Unreachable" is while the domU is being initialized
>> > and then you can see that it is up and running when the pings start to
>> > resolve correctly.
>> >
>> > # ping 192.168.0.16
>> > PING 192.168.0.16 (192.168.0.16) 56(84) bytes of data.
>> > >From 192.168.0.20 icmp_seq=1 Destination Host Unreachable
>> > >From 192.168.0.20 icmp_seq=2 Destination Host Unreachable
>> > >From 192.168.0.20 icmp_seq=3 Destination Host Unreachable
>> > 64 bytes from 192.168.0.16: icmp_seq=4 ttl=64 time=2288 ms
>> > 64 bytes from 192.168.0.16: icmp_seq=5 ttl=64 time=1279 ms
>> > 64 bytes from 192.168.0.16: icmp_seq=6 ttl=64 time=279 ms
>> > 64 bytes from 192.168.0.16: icmp_seq=7 ttl=64 time=0.173 ms
>> > 64 bytes from 192.168.0.16: icmp_seq=8 ttl=64 time=0.167 ms
>> >
>> > However, if I wait a minute or so, and ping again, the results are:
>> >
>> > # ping 192.168.0.16
>> > PING 192.168.0.16 (192.168.0.16) 56(84) bytes of data.
>> > >From 192.168.0.20 icmp_seq=2 Destination Host Unreachable
>> > >From 192.168.0.20 icmp_seq=3 Destination Host Unreachable
>> > >From 192.168.0.20 icmp_seq=4 Destination Host Unreachable
>> >
>> > It like the virtual instance is there, and then gone. Here is the
>> > output of ifconfig on the dom0:
>> >
>> > eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:30:48:DD:BF:E6
>> > inet addr:192.168.0.15 Bcast:192.168.0.255
>> > Mask:255.255.255.0
>> > inet6 addr: fe80::230:48ff:fedd:bfe6/64 Scope:Link
>> > UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1
>> > RX packets:100938 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
>> > TX packets:105438 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
>> > collisions:0 txqueuelen:0
>> > RX bytes:22554988 (21.5 MiB) TX bytes:36166834 (34.4 MiB)
>> >
>> > lo Link encap:Local Loopback
>> > inet addr:127.0.0.1 Mask:255.0.0.0
>> > inet6 addr: ::1/128 Scope:Host
>> > UP LOOPBACK RUNNING MTU:16436 Metric:1
>> > RX packets:59 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
>> > TX packets:59 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
>> > collisions:0 txqueuelen:0
>> > RX bytes:8735 (8.5 KiB) TX bytes:8735 (8.5 KiB)
>> >
>> > peth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr FE:FF:FF:FF:FF:FF
>> > inet6 addr: fe80::fcff:ffff:feff:ffff/64 Scope:Link
>> > UP BROADCAST RUNNING NOARP PROMISC MTU:1500 Metric:1
>> > RX packets:43429 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
>> > TX packets:81914 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
>> > collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000
>> > RX bytes:3861115 (3.6 MiB) TX bytes:35054903 (33.4 MiB)
>> > Memory:faee0000-faf00000
>> >
>> > vif0.0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr FE:FF:FF:FF:FF:FF
>> > inet6 addr: fe80::fcff:ffff:feff:ffff/64 Scope:Link
>> > UP BROADCAST RUNNING NOARP MTU:1500 Metric:1
>> > RX packets:109516 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
>> > TX packets:104013 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
>> > collisions:0 txqueuelen:0
>> > RX bytes:36479083 (34.7 MiB) TX bytes:23210637 (22.1 MiB)
>> >
>> > vif3.0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr FE:FF:FF:FF:FF:FF
>> > inet6 addr: fe80::fcff:ffff:feff:ffff/64 Scope:Link
>> > UP BROADCAST RUNNING NOARP MTU:1500 Metric:1
>> > RX packets:66747 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
>> > TX packets:33219 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
>> > collisions:0 txqueuelen:32
>> > RX bytes:19263437 (18.3 MiB) TX bytes:2202911 (2.1 MiB)
>> >
>> > virbr0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:00:00:00:00:00
>> > inet addr:192.168.122.1 Bcast:192.168.122.255
>> > Mask:255.255.255.0
>> > inet6 addr: fe80::200:ff:fe00:0/64 Scope:Link
>> > UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1
>> > RX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
>> > TX packets:33 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
>> > collisions:0 txqueuelen:0
>> > RX bytes:0 (0.0 b) TX bytes:6452 (6.3 KiB)
>> >
>> > xenbr0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr FE:FF:FF:FF:FF:FF
>> > UP BROADCAST RUNNING NOARP MTU:1500 Metric:1
>> > RX packets:290 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:28601 (27.9 KiB) TX bytes:0 (0.0 b)
>> >
>> > I have the dom0 and the 2 domU's setup with using static IPV4 networking
>> > and created the domU's to use the xenbro0 bridge during initial
>> > creation. Here is the config file for one of the domU's:
>> >
>> > name = "mailsrv01"
>> > uuid = "7f378a13-21aa-0ea0-9cc9-b348bcb2eb94"
>> > maxmem = 3000
>> > memory = 3000
>> > vcpus = 1
>> > bootloader = "/usr/bin/pygrub"
>> > on_poweroff = "destroy"
>> > on_reboot = "restart"
>> > on_crash = "restart"
>> > disk = [ "tap:aio:/etc/xen/mailsrv01-os-hdd.img,xvda,w" ]
>> > vif = [ "mac=00:16:36:43:fb:b6,bridge=xenbr0,script=vif-bridge" ]
>> >
>> > I have disabled iptables and the firewall on the domU's, hoping that
>> > would address the issue, but it hasn't.
>> >
>> > Not sure if this is any help, but here is a snippet of /var/log/messages
>> > when I start the above domU using "xm create mailsrv01":
>> >
>> > Jun 13 18:13:38 mailprod01 kernel: ADDRCONF(NETDEV_CHANGE): vif4.0: link
>> > becomes ready
>> > Jun 13 18:13:38 mailprod01 kernel: xenbr0: topology change detected,
>> > propagating
>> > Jun 13 18:13:38 mailprod01 kernel: xenbr0: port 3(vif4.0) entering
>> > forwarding state
>> > Jun 13 18:14:53 mailprod01 ntpd[3572]: synchronized to 173.203.202.87,
>> > stratum 2
>> > Jun 13 18:15:37 mailprod01 kernel: xenbr0: port 3(vif4.0) entering
>> > disabled state
>> > Jun 13 18:15:37 mailprod01 kernel: device vif4.0 left promiscuous mode
>> > Jun 13 18:15:37 mailprod01 kernel: xenbr0: port 3(vif4.0) entering
>> > disabled state
>> > Jun 13 18:16:18 mailprod01 kernel: tap tap-5-51712: 2 getting info
>> > Jun 13 18:16:18 mailprod01 kernel: device vif5.0 entered promiscuous
>> > mode
>> > Jun 13 18:16:18 mailprod01 kernel: ADDRCONF(NETDEV_UP): vif5.0: link is
>> > not ready
>> > Jun 13 18:16:22 mailprod01 kernel: blktap: ring-ref 8, event-channel 6,
>> > protocol 1 (x86_64-abi)
>> > Jun 13 18:16:30 mailprod01 kernel: ADDRCONF(NETDEV_CHANGE): vif5.0: link
>> > becomes ready
>> > Jun 13 18:16:30 mailprod01 kernel: xenbr0: topology change detected,
>> > propagating
>> > Jun 13 18:16:30 mailprod01 kernel: xenbr0: port 3(vif5.0) entering
>> > forwarding state
>> >
>> > I have spent 3 weeks working through this issue and I'm still unable to
>> > resolve it. Can anyone guide me to what I am missing or need to change
>> > in order to resolve the issue of not being able to "see" the domU's?
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > John
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Xen-users mailing list
>> > Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> > http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
--
Tapas
http://mightydreams.blogspot.com
http://wiki.xensource.com/xenwiki/Xen_on_4_app_servers
_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
|
Home