[PVE-User] Problem proxmox 2.0 to forward vmbr1 to eth0, eth1, eth2 VM

[maykel at maykel.sytes.net]

El 2012-03-26 11:34, Flavio Stanchina escribió: 

>
maykel at maykel.sytes.netwrote:
> 
>> Hi! I have installed successfully
proxmox 2.0 in my server. It has four network cards: [...] vmbr1 Link
encap:Ethernet HWaddr 3c:4a:92:7c:4d:b9 inet addr:10.116.10.15
Bcast:10.116.255.255 Mask:255.255.0.0 vmbr2 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr
00:26:55:ea:3d:48 inet addr:10.116.10.26 Bcast:10.116.255.255
Mask:255.255.0.0 vmbr3 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:26:55:ea:3d:49 inet
addr:10.116.10.27 Bcast:10.116.255.255 Mask:255.255.0.0 [...] And now,
ping to 10.116.10.26(vmbr2)other physical network card in theory:
root at virtual1:~# tcpdump -i vmbr2 icmp ----->>> Not show anything But in
vmbr1 yes...
> 
> Your network configuration doesn't make sense. You
have three network 
> cards on the same subnet and you say the cable is
not connected on vmbr2 
> and vmbr3, so the behavior you see is entirely
normal and certainly not 
> a bug in Proxmox VE. Packets to 10.116.10.26
and .27 will never traverse 
> the physical network interfaces that own
those address if the cables are 
> not connected, I think that's
obvious.
> 
> I suggest to test a similar network configuration on two
physical 
> machines before trying it in a virtualized environment with
the 
> additional complexities of bridging and virtual networks.

Hi
Flavio, thanks for your response. 

The idea was to connect:

vmbr0 -->
LAN

vmbr1 --> LAN

vmbr2 --> WAN

vmbr3 --> WAN

But even with the same
range of ips in vmbr1, vmbr2 and vmbr3, if there is a cable not
connected vmbr3 vmbr2 and should not answer to ping. Do not you think?


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-user/attachments/20120326/7c3ab6c3/attachment.htm>