On 3 February 2010 17:16, <a...@arndb.de> wrote: > On Wednesday 03 February 2010 17:56:43 J L wrote: >> I am having an odd networking issue. It is one of those "it used to >> work, and now it doesn't" kind of things. I can't work out what I am >> doing differently. >> >> I have a virtual machine, started with (among other things): >> -net nic,macaddr=fa:9e:0b:53:d2:7d,model=rtl8139 -net >> tap,script=/images/1/ifup-eth0,downscript=/images/1/ifdown-eth0 >> -net nic,macaddr=fa:02:4e:86:ed:ce,model=e1000 -net >> tap,script=/images/1/ifup-eth1,downscript=/images/1/ifdown-eth1 > > This seems to be missing a vlan= option at least for the second pair: > >> What I actually get: >> * VM: eth1, dest MAC of Host's tap1/br0 >> * Host: tap1, dest MAC of Host's tap1/br0 >> * Host: br1, dest MAC of Host's tap1/br0 >> * Host should, but does not route from br0 to br1 >> * Host: tap0, dest MAC of ***Host's tap1/br0*** >> * Host: br0, dest MAC of ***Host's tap1/br0** >> * Host: eth0, no packet >> * Server: eth0, no packet >> >> As you can see, the packet has egressed both tap interfaces! Is this >> expected behaviour? What can I do about this? > > Qemu forwards this packet to everything inside of the same vlan, which > is 0 by default. Does it work with this? > > -net nic,vlan=1,macaddr=fa:9e:0b:53:d2:7d,model=rtl8139 -net > tap,vlan=1,script=/images/1/ifup-eth0,downscript=/images/1/ifdown-eth0 > -net nic,vlan=2,macaddr=fa:02:4e:86:ed:ce,model=e1000 -net > tap,vlan=2,script=/images/1/ifup-eth1,downscript=/images/1/ifdown-eth1
Thanks, both to you and Tom, who both emailed this piece of clue at the same time :) My misunderstanding was in thinking that vlan=XX would mean the packets would land on the bridge with that VLAN tag, not what it seems to actually be doing, of being used to tie one-or-more '-net nic' sections with one-or-more '-net tap' sections. That is, I though the vlan=XX was host-wide, not guest-wide. Don't know how it worked before - probably I just never noticed the extra packets. >> If I remove tap0 from the bridge, I then get: >> * VM: eth1, dest MAC of Host's tap1/br0 >> * Host: tap1, dest MAC of Host's tap1/br0 >> * Host: br1, dest MAC of Host's tap1/br0 >> * Host should, but does not, route from br0 to br1 >> * Host: tap0, no packet >> * Host: br0, no packet >> * Host: eth0, no packet >> * Server: eth0, no packet >> >> This is the other half of my problem: in this case, with effectively >> only one tap, the host is not routing between br1 and br0. The packet >> just gets silently dropped. Does anyone know what I am doing wrong? > > Maybe /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward is disabled? Sorry, forgot to mention that bit. It is '1'. I added a '-j LOG' rule to the FORWARD table (as the only rule, policy ACCEPT), and can see that the packets from the VM never make it to the FORWARD table. > > Arnd > Thanks, -- Jarrod Lowe -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
