Rich Wales wrote:
> Tom Eastep wrote:
>
> (I tried imitating the "Xen My
> Way-Routed" example in the Shorewall documentation, but for some reason
> it simply won't work for me -- the domU stubbornly refuses to connect to
> the network and flatly will not start up.)
>
As I point out in the XenMy
On Thu, 2007-12-20 at 15:03 -0800, Tom Eastep wrote:
> Hence, the proposed function to compare two addresses:
>
> addr_comp() {
> test $(bc < $1 > $2
> EOF
> ) -eq 1
>
> }
>
> That will sure make your parents proud. To compare two numbers, you only
> have to fork(), pipe(), exec(), ...
>
>
On Thu, 2007-12-20 at 16:13 -0800, Tom Eastep wrote:
> > Corrected patch attached (first one broke ip_range_explicit().
On initial inspection, this patch seems to work. I no longer get the
complaints from /bin/sh in any case.
I wonder though, if you want to put in a one-time (i.e. capability) te
Hi, Tom --
Replying to:
> As I point out in the XenMyWay-Routed doc, the 'out of the box' routed
> domU configuration _will not_ connect to the network (it can connect to
> the dom0). You can correct that problem by doing this:
>
> echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf//proxy_arp
>
> Note that Shor
Mike wrote:
>
> I tried this route rule
>
> - 10.5.198.191main1000
>
> And it worked, however the second person that connects to poptop would
> not be routed correctly with making the whole poptop address pool
> 10.5.198.191-199 ???
In these cases,
Well, it probably is working. I'm probably just misunderstanding
something.
Given routing rules that look like this:
0: from all lookup local
1: from all fwmark 0x40 lookup CGCO
10001: from all fwmark 0x80 lookup IGS
2: from 67.193.45.68 lookup CGCO
20256: from 66.11.173.224
[ I hope this isn't a dupe. Evolution crashed on my last send and I see
nothing in my logs that leads me to believe the mail made it out before
the crash ]
Well, it probably is working. I'm probably just misunderstanding
something.
Given routing rules that look like this:
0: from all look
Brian J. Murrell wrote:
> Well, it probably is working. I'm probably just misunderstanding
> something.
>
> Given routing rules that look like this:
>
> 0: from all lookup local
> 1: from all fwmark 0x40 lookup CGCO
> 10001: from all fwmark 0x80 lookup IGS
> 2: from 67.193.45.
OK, I finally managed to figure out what was going haywire in my Xen
configuration. It turns out that if you have a routed Xen setup and
are using a non-default network interface in dom0 (i.e., something
other than eth0), you need to explicitly pass the interface name (via
a netdev= parameter) to
Rich Wales wrote:
> OK, I finally managed to figure out what was going haywire in my Xen
> configuration. It turns out that if you have a routed Xen setup and
> are using a non-default network interface in dom0 (i.e., something
> other than eth0), you need to explicitly pass the interface name (vi
On Fri, 2007-12-28 at 18:22 -0600, Jerry Vonau wrote:
> Brian J. Murrell wrote:
>
> > and given the CGCO routing table:
> >
> > 10.8.0.2 dev tun0 proto kernel scope link src 10.8.0.1
> > 67.193.45.68 dev eth0.1 scope link
> > 192.168.200.1 dev ppp0 proto kernel scope link src 66.11.173
Brian J. Murrell wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-12-28 at 18:22 -0600, Jerry Vonau wrote:
>> Brian J. Murrell wrote:
>>
>>> and given the CGCO routing table:
>>>
>>> 10.8.0.2 dev tun0 proto kernel scope link src 10.8.0.1
>>> 67.193.45.68 dev eth0.1 scope link
>>> 192.168.200.1 dev ppp0 proto kernel
12 matches
Mail list logo
