On Mon, 10 Sep 2012, Steve Thompson wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Sep 2012, Steve Thompson wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 10 Sep 2012, Dale Dellutri wrote:
>>
>>> This looks like it should work for Client A, but maybe not for Client B (see
>>> below). So maybe it's a firewall problem (iptables chain FORWARD) on the
>
On Mon, 10 Sep 2012, Les Mikesell wrote:
> Do the things you are trying to reach have a route back through the KVM host?
Yep.
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 4:45 PM, Steve Thompson wrote:
>
>> What does that mean? A bridge shouldn't have an address and a
>> gateway needs to be the IP of something capable of routing.
>
> Sure it has an address:
>
> # ip addr show br1
> 7: br1: mtu 1500 qdisc noqueue state UNKNOWN
> ...
>
On Mon, 10 Sep 2012, Les Mikesell wrote:
> What does that mean? A bridge shouldn't have an address and a
> gateway needs to be the IP of something capable of routing.
Sure it has an address:
# ip addr show br1
7: br1: mtu 1500 qdisc noqueue state UNKNOWN
...
inet 192.168.4.2/22 brd
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 11:34 AM, Steve Thompson wrote:
>
>
> Each client uses the bridge's IP address on the same side as default
> gateway.
What does that mean? A bridge shouldn't have an address and a
gateway needs to be the IP of something capable of routing.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmi
On Mon, 10 Sep 2012, Steve Thompson wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Sep 2012, Dale Dellutri wrote:
>
>> This looks like it should work for Client A, but maybe not for Client B (see
>> below). So maybe it's a firewall problem (iptables chain FORWARD) on the
>> host?
>>
>> Client B's default route is 192.168.4
On Mon, 10 Sep 2012, Dale Dellutri wrote:
> This looks like it should work for Client A, but maybe not for Client B (see
> below). So maybe it's a firewall problem (iptables chain FORWARD) on the
> host?
>
> Client B's default route is 192.168.4.1. This address is not on the host.
> Did you mean
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 12:37 PM, Steve Thompson wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Sep 2012, Dale Dellutri wrote:
>
>> Routing problem?
>
> Not that I can see, but here is the info (omitting interfaces that are not
> up). I included on one KVM since the problem is common to the others, and
> they are all set up
On Mon, 10 Sep 2012, Dale Dellutri wrote:
> Routing problem?
Not that I can see, but here is the info (omitting interfaces that are not
up). I included on one KVM since the problem is common to the others, and
they are all set up the same way.
On the host:
3: em2: mtu 1500 qdisc mq state UP q
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 11:34 AM, Steve Thompson wrote:
>
> A CentOS 6.3 box ("host") runs several KVM virtual machines, each of which
> has two interfaces attached to the two bridges br1 and br2 (and each thus
> has two IP's; one on 192.168.0.0/22 and one on 192.168.4.0/22);
> net.ipv4.ip_forward
A CentOS 6.3 box ("host") runs several KVM virtual machines, each of which
has two interfaces attached to the two bridges br1 and br2 (and each thus
has two IP's; one on 192.168.0.0/22 and one on 192.168.4.0/22);
net.ipv4.ip_forward on the host is 1. Simplified diagram:
11 matches
Mail list logo