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

Maykel Franco Hernández maykel at maykel.sytes.net
Mon Mar 26 15:22:35 CEST 2012


 

El 2012-03-26 14:09, Flavio Stanchina escribió: 

>
maykel at maykel.sytes.netwrote:
> 
>> El 2012-03-26 11:34, Flavio
Stanchina escribió: 
>> 
>>> 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, [...] 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
> 
> So you're saying that vmbr2 and vmbr3 are NOT on the same
network as 
> vmbr1. Why, then, did you give them an IP address on the
same subnet as 
> vmbr1? Why did you give them an IP address at all?
>

>> But even with the same range of ips in vmbr1, vmbr2 andvmbr3, if
there is a cable not connected vmbr3 vmbr2 and should not answer to
ping. Do not you think?
> 
> To tell the truth, I'm not sure I
understand exactly why the Linux 
> network stack behaves in this way,
but it does. As I said in my previous 
> email, you should definitely do
some tests on physical hardware before 
> blaming Proxmox VE for odd
behavior.
> 
> For the record, I just tried this on a server I have
lying around:
> 
> # ip addr
> 2: eth0: mtu 1500 qdisc pfifo_fast 
>
state UNKNOWN qlen 100
> link/ether 00:04:75:d7:61:85 brd
ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
> inet 10.1.3.70/24 brd 10.1.3.255 scope global eth0
>
3: eth1: mtu 1500 qdisc pfifo_fast 
> state DOWN qlen 1000
> link/ether
00:4f:4e:11:e0:65 brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
> inet 10.1.3.254/24 brd
10.1.3.255 scope global eth1
> 
> As you can see, eth0 has address
10.1.3.70 and the cable is connected, 
> while eth1 has address
10.1.3.254 but the cable is disconnected 
> (NO-CARRIER).
> 
> From a
Windows client:
> 
> >ping -n 1 10.1.3.70
> Reply from 10.1.3.70:
bytes=32 timeping -n 1 10.1.3.254
> Reply from 10.1.3.254: bytes=32
timearp -a | grep 00-04-75-d7-61-85
> 10.1.3.70 00-04-75-d7-61-85
dynamic
> 10.1.3.254 00-04-75-d7-61-85 dynamic
> 
> As you can see, the
server answers pings to both addresses, obviously 
> from the same
physical interface (eth0 in this case). As I said above, I 
> don't
understand exactly *why* it answers for the second address but, as 
> I
have no doubt that the Linux networking guys know their way around 
>
TCP/IP, I'm going to assume it's been designed to do so and it's not a
bug.

Thanks for your responsed Flavio.

I assigned the same network to
vmbr1, vmbr2 and vmbr3 for the testing. Instead, I configured de vmbr2
and vmbr3 with WAN IP addresses and the pings OK.

You can do it
internally, but a physical card or vmbr3 vmbr2 that has no cable
connected, it should not return the ICMP. You agree with that?

either
way, I do not think he is doing well.

Any suggestions¿??

 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://pve.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-user/attachments/20120326/8760afae/attachment-0014.html>


More information about the pve-user mailing list