Are you running 2.0.7 on FC4 with the latest updates? I haven't tried
anything other than the to-be 3.0 releases. Maybe I should run the stable
version and wait for 3.0 to be released. I have "real" work I'd like to
get done :).
BTW, the thread below refers to the unstable release.
> Hi,
> Perhaps I've missed something. I believe multiple physical NICs and
> multiple bridges both work correctly (using 2.0.7 from source, anyway)
>
> eg. My Firewall config contains (overkill)
> pci = ['00,0b,0', '00,0a,0' ]
> nics=11
> vif = [ 'mac=aa:00:00:00:22:01, bridge=br10', \
> 'mac=aa:00:00:25:40:01, bridge=xen-br0', \
> 'mac=aa:00:00:25:40:09, bridge=br1', \
> 'mac=aa:00:00:25:40:17, bridge=br2', \
> 'mac=aa:00:00:25:40:25, bridge=br3', \
> 'mac=aa:00:00:25:40:33, bridge=br4', \
> 'mac=aa:00:00:25:40:49, bridge=br5', \
> 'mac=aa:00:00:25:40:45, bridge=br6', \
> 'mac=aa:00:00:25:40:73, bridge=br7', \
> 'mac=aa:00:00:25:40:81, bridge=br8', \
> 'mac=aa:00:00:25:40:97, bridge=br9' ]
>
> So that's 2 REAL nics and 11 virtual for the Firewall.
>
> Marcus.
>
> Nivedita Singhvi wrote:
>> master@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>
>>> I've been usings Rik's experimental 1454 RPMs and they work fine with
>>> the
>>> exception of multiple NICs in domU and some spurious 'xm list' errors.
>>>
>>> Is there a known working combination that supports FC4 dom0/domU and
>>> multiple NICs in the domU? Right now, domU crashes when more than one
>>> NIC
>>> is specified -- apparently a known bug.
>>>
>>> I'm trying to build a domU firewall and that will require at least two
>>> physical NICs in the domU. I also plan on building a snort monitoring
>>> box
>>> in their somewhere as well.
>>
>>
>> Did you really mean physical nics in domU? That isn't
>> yet supported at the moment for pci devices. The multiple
>> virtual nics problem should be fixed fairly soon...
>>
>> thanks,
>> Nivedita
>
_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
|
Home