[leaf-user] Anyone using UML or Xen?
Has anyone on the list successfully modeled a virtual WAN infrastructure, or at least built a functional LEAF router within UML or Xen? If so, I'd appreciate any suggestions you may have on the quickest way to setup this virtual WAN. I've been looking at 3 different virtualization methods to create VM's in which to design and test a set of LEAF routers. These will then be installed in flash drive or DOC on new hardware to replace routers in an existing WAN infrastructure. To be effective I'll need between 9 and 12 VM's, 5 of which will be LEAF routers and the remainder test client hosts. The LEAF routers will require 6, 5, 5, 5, and 3 NICS. I'd prefer that none of them send traffic out on the real network during testing, but are capable of isolated interconnectivity. VMware limits VM's to 3 NICs each and has bloated memory requirements. Xen looks like it's very efficient with host resources, but requires kernel mods in the guest. UML seems popular among LEAF users but I can find precious little on its use with LEAF. I have not used Xen or UML. I have begun building some limited function LEAF routers in VMware, but I'm hamstrung by the NIC limitations and memory requirements. Host Platform: Dell Precision 360 CPU: 2.4 GHz P4, 512 cache RAM: 1 GB HD: 60 GB OS: RHL 9 Suggestions are welcome! --Cal Webster --- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: New Crystal Reports XI. Version 11 adds new functionality designed to reduce time involved in creating, integrating, and deploying reporting solutions. Free runtime info, new features, or free trial, at: http://www.businessobjects.com/devxi/728 leaf-user mailing list: leaf-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-user SR FAQ: http://leaf-project.org/pub/doc/docmanager/docid_1891.html
RE: [leaf-user] Best 4-port NICs?
I went with the Intel Pro/100 MT Quad Port Server Adapter, but got a rude surprise after it arrived! Contrary to all the sales literature, the card will _NOT_ fit in the standard 32-bit PCI slot, at least not those available in any local PC hardware, including the passive-backplane industrial rack-mount PC's purchased for this project. I did a lot of searching on the Intel site before purchasing it specifically to determine if it would fit, but everything indicated it would fit. After more searching I found an obscure notice that it will fit only 3.3 volt, 32-bit, 33 MHz PCI slots (key on inboard end of slot). It will not fit in 5 volt, 33 MHz slots (key on outboard end of slot) or universal 3.3/5 volt slots. http://support.intel.com/support/network/adapter/1000mtquad/sb/cs-009537.htm Now I've got an expensive card that I have to find another use for and I'll have to make do with fewer ports on its intended host. --Cal Webster On Thu, 2005-04-07 at 15:36, Calvin Webster wrote: Thanks for the info Peter. Here are my choices so far: Intel: Intel PRO/1000 MT Quad Port Server Adapter $337 Osicom: FE-2404-TX - 10/100BTX PCI FAST ENET NIC $329 Adaptec: ANA-64044LV 4-Port, 64-bit/66 MHz PCI NIC $409 Obsolete but available in obscure locations: D-Link: DFE-570TX 4 port 21143 card (avail only on eBay) $80 Phobos: P430 4-port 10/100 NIC (kernelsoftware.com) $248 I'm thinking the Intel NIC would be best, but after looking at it on intel.com I'm not sure it'll fit in a PCI slot. It looks like a PCI/X card. My next choice would be the Osicom card for price/performance, but I've never heard of them before. They say it's based on the Intel 82559 and list Linux as a supported OS so it should work. Adaptec has had the quad NIC for quite a while, but I'm not sure if it uses the tulip drivers that you warned against. Adaptec doesn't say what chip set is used. The two obsolete cards I found while searching. I hesitate to get these because (1) I'm not sure if they're supported, and (2) they may not be available when we need replacements. Our firewall hardware platform uses a passive backplane chassis with Cyber Research PIII-based single board computers. I can't find the SBC documentation so I'm not sure if it'll handle 64-bit PCI transfers. Even so, it shouldn't be worse than 4 single port NICs. Which would you favor? Thanks! --Cal Webster On Thu, 2005-04-07 at 14:08, Peter Mueller wrote: I'd appreciate a recommendation from the list on which 4-port NICs work best with the Bering uClibc distro? Any known problems using them with single-port NICs on the same machine? The situation is the same as with a normal distro. uClibc uses modules; therefore, you can insert commands just like with a regular distro. Stay away from Tulip based 4-port cards. I have used Intel cards to good effect, especially with newer machines. Older servers sometimes have IRQ issues. On 4 servers here we are using 2 dual 64bit 66mhz+ Intel gigabit adapters to good effect. It is important to get 64bit 66mhz+ cards if you want to push a lot of bandwidth. Regards, P --- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_ide95alloc_id396op=click leaf-user mailing list: leaf-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-user SR FAQ: http://leaf-project.org/pub/doc/docmanager/docid_1891.html --- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_ide95alloc_id396op=click leaf-user mailing list: leaf-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-user SR FAQ: http://leaf-project.org/pub/doc/docmanager/docid_1891.html --- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: New Crystal Reports XI. Version 11 adds new functionality designed to reduce time involved in creating, integrating, and deploying reporting solutions. Free runtime info, new features, or free trial, at: http://www.businessobjects.com/devxi/728 leaf-user mailing list: leaf-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-user SR FAQ: http://leaf-project.org/pub/doc/docmanager/docid_1891.html
RE: [leaf-user] ipsec - no support for interface aliases
Hello Cpu,
Thanks for your fix. I like some more feedback from other users so this can be
added to ipsec the package. Anyone who can also test this?
Eric
-Original Message-
From: cpu memhd[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 19-4-05 18:50:02
To: leaf-user@lists.sourceforge.netleaf-user@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: [leaf-user] ipsec - no support for interface aliases
Seems like the ipsec scripts rely heavily on ifconfig but that utility
is not available on bering-uclibc. There are lots of modifications to
make it work with the ip command. I was able to overcome this problem
by replacing this line in _startklips:
eval `ip addr show $phys primary | grep inet | sed -n 1p |
With this:
eval `ip addr show ${phys%%:*} label $phys | grep inet | sed -n 1p |
Before:
Device eth2:0 does not exist.
After:
inet 192.168.8.10/16 brd 192.168.8.255 scope global secondary eth2:0
If there is no ethx:xxx label, the above modification still works (eg.
ip addr show eth0 label eth0).
Just thought I'd mention this because I think it's important enough to
change. Openswan does support aliased interfaces and it's the only way
to use a secondary ip, that I know of at least.
__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
---
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: New Crystal Reports XI.
Version 11 adds new functionality designed to reduce time involved in
creating, integrating, and deploying reporting solutions. Free runtime info,
new features, or free trial, at: http://www.businessobjects.com/devxi/728
leaf-user mailing list: leaf-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-user
SR FAQ: http://leaf-project.org/pub/doc/docmanager/docid_1891.html
---
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: New Crystal Reports XI.
Version 11 adds new functionality designed to reduce time involved in
creating, integrating, and deploying reporting solutions. Free runtime info,
new features, or free trial, at: http://www.businessobjects.com/devxi/728
leaf-user mailing list: leaf-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-user
SR FAQ: http://leaf-project.org/pub/doc/docmanager/docid_1891.html
Re: [leaf-user] Anyone using UML or Xen?
On Wed, 2005-04-20 at 12:54 -0400, Calvin Webster wrote: Has anyone on the list successfully modeled a virtual WAN infrastructure, or at least built a functional LEAF router within UML or Xen? If so, I'd appreciate any suggestions you may have on the quickest way to setup this virtual WAN. you may tryout qemu (with kqemu kernel module for accelaration on host system http://fabrice.bellard.free.fr/qemu/ ) and vde (http://vde.sourceforge.net/) as virtual ethernet. I have a setup to test but only use 2 machines with 2 nics (and 2 virtual switches/hubs). With vde, you can also use virtual cables over ssh if one machine isn't enough for testing...qemu seems to have a maximum number of 8 network cards, so that should may be enough... You don't need to change anything to run bering-uclibc (or another leaf) inside qemu... besides the network card driver. Hope that helps, arne -- Arne Bernin [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: New Crystal Reports XI. Version 11 adds new functionality designed to reduce time involved in creating, integrating, and deploying reporting solutions. Free runtime info, new features, or free trial, at: http://www.businessobjects.com/devxi/728 leaf-user mailing list: leaf-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-user SR FAQ: http://leaf-project.org/pub/doc/docmanager/docid_1891.html
Re: [leaf-user] Best 4-port NICs?
Calvin Webster wrote: I went with the Intel Pro/100 MT Quad Port Server Adapter, but got a rude surprise after it arrived! Contrary to all the sales literature, the card will _NOT_ fit in the standard 32-bit PCI slot, at least not those available in any local PC hardware, including the passive-backplane industrial rack-mount PC's purchased for this project. I did a lot of searching on the Intel site before purchasing it specifically to determine if it would fit, but everything indicated it would fit. After more searching I found an obscure notice that it will fit only 3.3 volt, 32-bit, 33 MHz PCI slots (key on inboard end of slot). It will not fit in 5 volt, 33 MHz slots (key on outboard end of slot) or universal 3.3/5 volt slots. http://support.intel.com/support/network/adapter/1000mtquad/sb/cs-009537.htm Now I've got an expensive card that I have to find another use for and I'll have to make do with fewer ports on its intended host. --Cal Webster A solution for lots of ports is to use 802.1q vlans. You do need a switch capable of vlan managment but you can then have as many ethernet ports as you want. -- Alvin Starr || voice: (416)585-9971 Interlink Connectivity|| fax: (416)585-9974 [EMAIL PROTECTED] || --- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: New Crystal Reports XI. Version 11 adds new functionality designed to reduce time involved in creating, integrating, and deploying reporting solutions. Free runtime info, new features, or free trial, at: http://www.businessobjects.com/devxi/728 leaf-user mailing list: leaf-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-user SR FAQ: http://leaf-project.org/pub/doc/docmanager/docid_1891.html
Re: [leaf-user] Best 4-port NICs?
On Wed, 2005-04-20 at 14:00, Alvin Starr wrote: A solution for lots of ports is to use 802.1q vlans. You do need a switch capable of vlan managment but you can then have as many ethernet ports as you want. I may only need one or two more so that may be a viable option for LANs with low-bandwidth requirements. Still, I'm disappointed that I can't experiment with this otherwise very capable NIC. Thanks. --Cal Webster --- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: New Crystal Reports XI. Version 11 adds new functionality designed to reduce time involved in creating, integrating, and deploying reporting solutions. Free runtime info, new features, or free trial, at: http://www.businessobjects.com/devxi/728 leaf-user mailing list: leaf-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-user SR FAQ: http://leaf-project.org/pub/doc/docmanager/docid_1891.html
Re: [leaf-user] Anyone using UML or Xen?
On Wed, 2005-04-20 at 13:59, Arne Bernin wrote: On Wed, 2005-04-20 at 12:54 -0400, Calvin Webster wrote: Has anyone on the list successfully modeled a virtual WAN infrastructure, or at least built a functional LEAF router within UML or Xen? If so, I'd appreciate any suggestions you may have on the quickest way to setup this virtual WAN. you may tryout qemu (with kqemu kernel module for accelaration on host system http://fabrice.bellard.free.fr/qemu/ ) and vde (http://vde.sourceforge.net/) as virtual ethernet. I have a setup to test but only use 2 machines with 2 nics (and 2 virtual switches/hubs). With vde, you can also use virtual cables over ssh if one machine isn't enough for testing...qemu seems to have a maximum number of 8 network cards, so that should may be enough... You don't need to change anything to run bering-uclibc (or another leaf) inside qemu... besides the network card driver. Thank you for the suggestions Arne. In my original post I was really looking for the fastest way to get 5 LEAF routers and 5 or 6 minimal client hosts virtualized. I don't really want to have to spend a lot of time building and learning the VM tool before I can use it. [QEMU] I took a look at the QEMU site. Some of the docs were a little hard to follow since they don't always say whether they're talking about host or guest OS. I like the cross-platform support, but it seems like it's still somewhat beta. Their comparison of other emulators claim that UML requires heavy kernel patches, while QEMU is nice to unpatched kernels, but it's slower. Is this true? [VDE] Is this required to connect QEMU machines? I don't see much about virtual networks in the docs. I don't see how this would help me create and test an _isolated_ virtual WAN. After reading the UML docs it seems that I can do this with the multicast and switch daemons, keeping the test traffic off my local LAN. [Summary] QEMU seems well suited for software development, but for my uses I think UML or Xen is the way to go. I'm leaning toward UML for now since it supposedly requires no modification to the guest OS. I don't want to have to recompile the LEAF distro to get started. Thank you for the info. I've bookmarked the sites for future reference. --Cal Webster --- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: New Crystal Reports XI. Version 11 adds new functionality designed to reduce time involved in creating, integrating, and deploying reporting solutions. Free runtime info, new features, or free trial, at: http://www.businessobjects.com/devxi/728 leaf-user mailing list: leaf-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-user SR FAQ: http://leaf-project.org/pub/doc/docmanager/docid_1891.html
Re: [leaf-user] Anyone using UML or Xen?
On Wed, 2005-04-20 at 16:02 -0400, Calvin Webster wrote: Thank you for the suggestions Arne. In my original post I was really looking for the fastest way to get 5 LEAF routers and 5 or 6 minimal client hosts virtualized. I don't really want to have to spend a lot of time building and learning the VM tool before I can use it. ok, maybe you are right... took me only a few seconds to install it here on my debian... But for the accelerated version you need the one from cvs. There are precompiled binaries on the qemu side. [QEMU] I took a look at the QEMU site. Some of the docs were a little hard to follow since they don't always say whether they're talking about host or guest OS. I like the cross-platform support, but it seems like it's still somewhat beta. From my experience i wouldn't call it more beta the Xen or UML... Their comparison of other emulators claim that UML requires heavy kernel patches, while QEMU is nice to unpatched kernels, but it's slower. Is this true? yes, you just use something like: qemu -fda Bering-uclibc-2.3beta2.img.bin and it starts nicely from the standard Floppy image. With the kernel module loaded it is much faster, i would suggest 2 or 3 times on my AMD 1800... [VDE] Is this required to connect QEMU machines? I don't see much about virtual networks in the docs. no, but it's the smartest way i know of. It creates virtual ethernet hardware (switches, hubs, cables), which you can connect to the host machine, but you don't need it... The standard qemu network support is limited, and you need more configuration on the host... I don't see how this would help me create and test an _isolated_ virtual WAN. After reading the UML docs it seems that I can do this with the multicast and switch daemons, keeping the test traffic off my local LAN. vde is using some of the uml switch daemon code if i remember it right. But maybe i missunderstand you what your intention is... [Summary] QEMU seems well suited for software development, but for my uses I think UML or Xen is the way to go. I'm leaning toward UML for now since it supposedly requires no modification to the guest OS. I don't want to have to recompile the LEAF distro to get started. I can understand that ;-) I just wanted to mention it, as i use it heavily for testing networks, not only leaf ones. Would take me a few minutes to build a network of 5 machines, i suppose, but i have some experience with it... Thank you for the info. I've bookmarked the sites for future reference. --Cal Webster --arne --- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: New Crystal Reports XI. Version 11 adds new functionality designed to reduce time involved in creating, integrating, and deploying reporting solutions. Free runtime info, new features, or free trial, at: http://www.businessobjects.com/devxi/728 leaf-user mailing list: leaf-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-user SR FAQ: http://leaf-project.org/pub/doc/docmanager/docid_1891.html -- Arne Bernin [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: New Crystal Reports XI. Version 11 adds new functionality designed to reduce time involved in creating, integrating, and deploying reporting solutions. Free runtime info, new features, or free trial, at: http://www.businessobjects.com/devxi/728 leaf-user mailing list: leaf-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-user SR FAQ: http://leaf-project.org/pub/doc/docmanager/docid_1891.html
Re: [leaf-user] Anyone using UML or Xen?
Hello Calvin, QEMU seems well suited for software development, but for my uses I think UML or Xen is the way to go. I'm leaning toward UML for now since it supposedly requires no modification to the guest OS. I don't want to have to recompile the LEAF distro to get started. I'm not sure about this, it's a very long time ago since I use UML but from what I remember you need to create an UML patched kernel for the guest OS. If this is true it would mean that you do have to recompile the LEAF distro with UML. With QEMU it's much easier, like Arne explained, you can just use the standard images. No changes needed on both the host and guest OS. Eric --- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: New Crystal Reports XI. Version 11 adds new functionality designed to reduce time involved in creating, integrating, and deploying reporting solutions. Free runtime info, new features, or free trial, at: http://www.businessobjects.com/devxi/728 leaf-user mailing list: leaf-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-user SR FAQ: http://leaf-project.org/pub/doc/docmanager/docid_1891.html
Re: [leaf-user] Anyone using UML or Xen?
Arne and Eric: Based on your latest info and Eric's note I believe I'll give QEMU a try. I like the simplicity (i.e. qemu -fda Bering-uclibc-2.3beta2.img.bin). I may be picking your brains while I setup the first few machines. Thank you very much. --Cal Webster On Wed, 2005-04-20 at 16:57, Arne Bernin wrote: On Wed, 2005-04-20 at 16:02 -0400, Calvin Webster wrote: Thank you for the suggestions Arne. In my original post I was really looking for the fastest way to get 5 LEAF routers and 5 or 6 minimal client hosts virtualized. I don't really want to have to spend a lot of time building and learning the VM tool before I can use it. ok, maybe you are right... took me only a few seconds to install it here on my debian... But for the accelerated version you need the one from cvs. There are precompiled binaries on the qemu side. [QEMU] I took a look at the QEMU site. Some of the docs were a little hard to follow since they don't always say whether they're talking about host or guest OS. I like the cross-platform support, but it seems like it's still somewhat beta. From my experience i wouldn't call it more beta the Xen or UML... Their comparison of other emulators claim that UML requires heavy kernel patches, while QEMU is nice to unpatched kernels, but it's slower. Is this true? yes, you just use something like: qemu -fda Bering-uclibc-2.3beta2.img.bin and it starts nicely from the standard Floppy image. With the kernel module loaded it is much faster, i would suggest 2 or 3 times on my AMD 1800... [VDE] Is this required to connect QEMU machines? I don't see much about virtual networks in the docs. no, but it's the smartest way i know of. It creates virtual ethernet hardware (switches, hubs, cables), which you can connect to the host machine, but you don't need it... The standard qemu network support is limited, and you need more configuration on the host... I don't see how this would help me create and test an _isolated_ virtual WAN. After reading the UML docs it seems that I can do this with the multicast and switch daemons, keeping the test traffic off my local LAN. vde is using some of the uml switch daemon code if i remember it right. But maybe i missunderstand you what your intention is... [Summary] QEMU seems well suited for software development, but for my uses I think UML or Xen is the way to go. I'm leaning toward UML for now since it supposedly requires no modification to the guest OS. I don't want to have to recompile the LEAF distro to get started. I can understand that ;-) I just wanted to mention it, as i use it heavily for testing networks, not only leaf ones. Would take me a few minutes to build a network of 5 machines, i suppose, but i have some experience with it... Thank you for the info. I've bookmarked the sites for future reference. --Cal Webster --arne --- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: New Crystal Reports XI. Version 11 adds new functionality designed to reduce time involved in creating, integrating, and deploying reporting solutions. Free runtime info, new features, or free trial, at: http://www.businessobjects.com/devxi/728 leaf-user mailing list: leaf-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-user SR FAQ: http://leaf-project.org/pub/doc/docmanager/docid_1891.html --- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: New Crystal Reports XI. Version 11 adds new functionality designed to reduce time involved in creating, integrating, and deploying reporting solutions. Free runtime info, new features, or free trial, at: http://www.businessobjects.com/devxi/728 leaf-user mailing list: leaf-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-user SR FAQ: http://leaf-project.org/pub/doc/docmanager/docid_1891.html
