Re: [Xen-users] routed network (not only one vif needed?) (corrected mail)

["Dirk H. Schulz" <dirk.schulz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,

Sueveges Gyoergy schrieb:

> Hi
>
>  Thnx for the answer.
>
> So do you think I need bridged network?
> I have the dom0 (having public IP, and being also part of the private  
> network) and ths DOMU-s as the subnetwork (192.168.0.x).
> I don't understand what will be happened with the network interfaces 
> at  briding:
>  - There will be an xen-br0 interface created with my  DOM0's (public) 
> IP  address
>  - When starting my DOM1 a mew VIF interface on DOM0 will be created, 
> but  there will be no interface created on DOM1.
> What I would except: having one virtual interface on dom0, that all 
> the  domU could see as gateway. On  DOMu there should be an
> eth0 everywehere where I would set the appropriate IP adresses, 
> gateways..  So with that I'd have a virtual router on DOM0. Maybe
> is this concept worng?
If you had one interface in dom0 that all domU could see, then every 
domU could "hear" all the traffic of the other domUs. That would be the 
opposite of security.
Thus you have a virtual interface for every domU in dom0 (which is the 
pseudo real interface inside domU). When there is traffic (lets say, 
between domU1 and domU2), then dom0 connects those two virtual 
interfaces using the bridge.
Someone somewhere said the bridge is like a crossover cable between two 
doms, and every pair of doms has its own crossover cable. And all these 
crossover cables together form the bridge.
> How schould I live with the interfaces created by xen bridge scripts 
> in  this case?
I am sorry, George, I do not understand the question. What is the 
problem with these interfaces?
Dirk

> Thnx
>  George
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 21:00:56 +0200, Dirk H. Schulz  
> <dirk.schulz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Georg,
>
> georg@xxxxxxxxxxxx schrieb:
>
> Hi!
>
> Now I tried to set up xen for routed network. I didn't understand why so
> much vifs will be create, as much as domains I have.
> My routed network consists of the domain0 (with public IP), and 
> domainU-s  as the subnetwork (192.168.0.x)
> So I modified the vif-route script in order to have only one vif for all
> domainsU-s (with ip 192.168.0.254).  But in this case only the domainU
> works, for that I created the vif. So I need more VIF in order to have
> networking also in all my DomainU-s? all of these Vifs should have the
> same IP address.
> Why should that make sense? I do not see what you are after with this.
>
> Routed networking implies that every domU is a subnet of its own, so 
> it  has to have an address space (not only a single address)
>  of its own. Dom0 has to have a routing table that connects the dom0 
> NIC  with the the virtual subnets that the domUs are.
> (My subdomains are in one private network (192.168.0.1))
>
> Why don't you use bridging, then?
>
> Dirk
>
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-users mailing list
> Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
>
>
>
> --
> Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
>
> _______________________________________________


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