I concur.
You could try playing with routing by assigning certain routes to phys
ifaces. But you are way better off with multiple boxes.
---MAV
Marc. Volovic
+972-54-467-6764
m...@swiftouch.com
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 13, 2009, at 6:46 PM, Aviv Greenberg wrote:
Seems like you have a ro
Aviv Greenberg wrote:
> 2009/3/16 Shachar Shemesh :
>
>
>> Sorry, almost got it :-)
>>
>>
>
> Didn't i say mind boggling routing rules? Told ya! :)
>
>
>> Shachar
>>
>> --
>> Shachar Shemesh
>> Lingnu Open Source Consulting Ltd.
>> http://www.lingnu.com
>>
>> _
2009/3/16 Shachar Shemesh :
>
> Sorry, almost got it :-)
>
Didn't i say mind boggling routing rules? Told ya! :)
> Shachar
>
> --
> Shachar Shemesh
> Lingnu Open Source Consulting Ltd.
> http://www.lingnu.com
>
> ___
> Linux-il mailing list
> Linux-il
Daniel Feiglin wrote:
Hello folks!
I'm trying to use a Linux box as a packet traffic generator. It has two
NICs configured with fixed IP addresses, 192.168.2.100/101. For testing
purposes, I connected the two NICs to each other with a crossed network
cable (hardware loopback). For what it's wor
Oleg Goldshmidt wrote:
> Shachar Shemesh writes:
>
>
>> Do the following experiment. Connect the 100 card to a network, and
>> from another computer ping the 101 address while a sniffer is
>> running. You will see an ARP reply going out from the 100 card,
>> carrying the 100 MAC address, and t
Oleg Goldshmidt wrote:
I thought that the two entities in question live in the same broadcast
domain (subnet/vlan) by requirement (just a cable between the NICs in
the original formulation).
They do, but you have to be layer 3 aware to notice that. Exactly like I
said - if you're layer 2, y
Shachar Shemesh writes:
> The behavior you are suggesting is akin to a hardware switch
> forwarding packets between two VLANS "to save on routing". A layer 2
> switch is simply not allowed to do that.
I thought that the two entities in question live in the same broadcast
domain (subnet/vlan) by
Oleg Goldshmidt wrote:
Shachar Shemesh writes:
Unless VM0 sends an ARP inquiring about the destination IP,
This ARP is sent to a physical NIC.
Actually, no. It is sent by the VM's virtual NIC (the VM does not know
anything else), and the "switch" in the hypervisor forwards it,
Shachar Shemesh writes:
> Unless VM0 sends an ARP inquiring about the destination IP,
>
> This ARP is sent to a physical NIC.
Actually, no. It is sent by the VM's virtual NIC (the VM does not know
anything else), and the "switch" in the hypervisor forwards it, among
other things, to the vir
Oleg Goldshmidt wrote:
It is, indeed, worth a try.
If you do, I am curious whether it works or not, so a summary will be
appreciated.
Me it'll take some time until I get to try it. If Daniel tries it,
please do report.
Switching is fine, as long as they are only layer 2 aware
Shachar Shemesh writes:
> None of those links say anything about causing a packets destined
> for a LOCAL ip to actually go out.
This is what I meant when I wrote I hadn't tried this configuration.
> It is, indeed, worth a try.
If you do, I am curious whether it works or not, so a summary will
Oleg Goldshmidt wrote:
Let me first make a disclaimer that I have not tried it myself in this
configuration, but here is what *might* point you towards a
solution. It may also turn out a dead end, mind you.
I'm sorry, my money is on the later.
http://www.clintoneast.com/articles/multihom
Shachar Shemesh writes:
> Do the following experiment. Connect the 100 card to a network, and
> from another computer ping the 101 address while a sniffer is
> running. You will see an ARP reply going out from the 100 card,
> carrying the 100 MAC address, and the ping will succeed despite the
> 1
Daniel Feiglin wrote:
For what it's worth, they can both be pinged
from the host and the ifconfig output looks fine.
I am sorry. "For what it's worth" is exactly nothing. The setup you are
trying to achieve is not possible as is.
The problem is convincing the TCP/IP stack to route packets
Seems like you have a routing problem.
Say you have 1 box with 2 interfaces, having IP x and y.
When you try to ping or connect to either x or y, the routing table is
being consulted.
The answer of "what is the route to x" is "Local" - and it is treated
as loopback.
I don't think actual packets wi
Hello folks!
I'm trying to use a Linux box as a packet traffic generator. It has two
NICs configured with fixed IP addresses, 192.168.2.100/101. For testing
purposes, I connected the two NICs to each other with a crossed network
cable (hardware loopback). For what it's worth, they can both be ping
16 matches
Mail list logo
