Re: [Xen-users] Yet another question about multiple NICs

[Philippe Combes <Philippe.Combes@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Felix Kuperjans wrote :
> Answers within quotes:
> > > - It's interesting that dom1's firewall output shows that no packages
> > > were processed, so maybe you didn't ping anything since the last reboot
> > > from dom1 or the firewall was loaded by reading it's statistics...
> > You requested for the outputs "when <my> system has just started".
> > Hence no packet, I guess. But shouldn't there be at least those exchanged
> > for the ssh connection to the dom1 ?
> > Anyway, after one minute or so, I get on the dom1:
> > # iptables -nvL
> > Chain INPUT (policy ACCEPT 23 packets, 884 bytes)
> >  pkts bytes target     prot opt in     out     source
> > destination
> >
> > Chain FORWARD (policy ACCEPT 0 packets, 0 bytes)
> >  pkts bytes target     prot opt in     out     source
> > destination
> >
> > Chain OUTPUT (policy ACCEPT 4 packets, 816 bytes)
> >  pkts bytes target     prot opt in     out     source
> > destination
> That looks better.
> > > Still no reasons why you can't ping local machines from the dom1 (and
> > > sometimes even not from dom0). Have you tried pinging each other, so
> > > dom0 -> dom1 and vice versa?
> > Yes I tried, and it has always worked while dom0's eth1 was up.
> So it's only impossible to ping the domU from other machines on the
> network (and vice versa)?
> I think Fajar is probably right with his guess that your physical
> switches are managed. That means they do traffic filtering on their
> ports based on the mac addresses.
> Which switch models do you use on your two networks?
I already answered Fajar in this thread: when the FIRST vif of dom1 is 
connected to dom0's eth1, then the behaviour on that switched LAN is 
normal, while the traffic on the routed LAN of dom0's eth0 issues the bug.
So my issue is definetely related to the instanciation of the SECOND 
interface of dom1, whatever network it is connected to. Or there is 
some kind of black magic underneath...

> > > The only remaining thing that denies communication would be ARP, so the
> > > output of:
> > > # ip neigh show
> > > on both machines *directly after* a ping would be nice (within a few
> > > seconds - use && and a time-terminated ping).
> > Nothing on a machine when not connected. But when connected (here the
> > dom0):
> > $ ip neigh show
> > 192.168.24.125 dev eth1 lladdr 00:16:36:e0:81:2c REACHABLE
> > 172.16.113.100 dev eth0 lladdr 00:16:38:4c:04:00 DELAY
> > 172.16.113.123 dev eth0 lladdr 00:16:36:e0:81:2e STALE
> > 172.16.113.124 dev eth0 lladdr 00:1b:24:3d:ca:95 REACHABLE
> > 172.16.113.106 dev eth0 lladdr 00:16:38:28:b5:39 REACHABLE
> ARP seems to work at least on the Domain-0 *if* one of those IP
> addresses is the one of the domU...
> Can you try doing this on the DomU when pinging a host in the network?
I did ! As requested ! And as you know, dom0 and dom1 are 
alternatively connected. When dom0 is connected (172.16.113.121 on 
eth0 and 192.168.24.123 on eth1) I get the trace above, but nothing 
from dom1. When dom1 is connected, I get a similar trace from dom1, 
but nothing from dom0 (I mean nothing on network 192.168.24.0)
Regards,
Philippe

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