|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-users] Yet another question about multiple NICs
Ok now I got the point... When it fails to connect, can you still ping the domain-0 or is it really nothing then? The domain-0 should be always at least reachable with your setup and should then show up in ip neigh on the dom-1 (and if the dom-1 doesn't reach anything else, it will be the only valid entry). I think there should be some "FAILED" entries when a machine cannot connect to the network, that's why I asked explicitly again. If there are even no FAILED entries I think it even did not ask, which means that some routes or address settings must be wrong. Regards, Felix Am 21.12.2010 02:58, schrieb Philippe Combes: > I am a bit confused now. What did I explained so badly ? Do I > understand you well ? > I said I ran ip neigh from both machines, as requested. And from dom1 > the output is similar to the output I dumped, but only when the > connection succeeds. Because, once again, dom1 and dom0 are never > "connected" at the same time, that is the issue. When dom0 (resp. > dom1) fails to connect to the network, then 'ip neigh' shows nothing. > > Regards, > Philippe > > Felix Kuperjans wrote: >> I meant to do ip neigh within dom1 - you wrote your output was from >> dom0. >> Is the dom0 able to reach machines on the networks? >> >> Regards, >> Felix >> >> Am 20.12.2010 04:12, schrieb Philippe Combes: >>> >>> 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 >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Xen-users mailing list >> Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users > > _______________________________________________ > Xen-users mailing list > Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users > _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
|
 |
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |