From: Ridgeway, A. <Ala...@ca...> - 2003-07-01 19:34:18
|
I believe the reason for 2 addresses per machine is due to the use of = TUN/TAP. This is a tunnel. Each end of the tunnel needs an address. Hence it seems to work like this diagram: Host Guest tap0 (192.168.1.5) <--------> (192.168.1.6) eth0 Notice that one point of the tunnel is tap0 for the host OS, the other end of the tunnel is eth0 for the guest OS. Hence each guest OS need 2 addresses per TUN/TAP.=20 This is why I used NAT. In other cases I have seen e-mails with one TUN/TAP guest OS as a bridge and the rest of the guest OSes as clients on the network. If anyone has a better explanation, please explain. Alan -----Original Message----- From: Erik de Bruijn - LowVoice [mailto:Erik@LowVoice.nl] Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 12:18 PM To: Ridgeway, Alan; use...@li... Subject: Re: [uml-user] Networking (with public IPs) Hi, I'd like to add a question to this networking thread. I DO intend to host UMLs with only public IPs, because I have a nice = range and I'll be able to connect to the directly and they can have their own = SSH, Apache, mailserver, etc. without any port mapping on the host. I don't want to use thet uml_net helper, since it's not as reliable. I = like to go to a prodution environment and want to try the most stable = solutions (unless they're impossible). There's one thing that confuses me though (maybe it shouldn't): -----/snippet from = http://user-mode-linux.sourceforge.net/networking.html /-------------- Configure the device IP (change IP addresses and device name to suit) host# ifconfig tap0 192.168.0.254 up Set up routing and arping if desired - this is my recipe, there are = other ways of doing the same thing [...] host# route add -host 192.168.0.253 dev tap0 host# bash -c 'echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf/tap0/proxy_arp' host# arp -Ds 192.168.0.253 eth0 pub ----------------------------------------- Why exactly does the example use two different IPs (.254 and .253)? When using public IPs, do I bind the tap0 device on the host to the same = address as I setup within the host? Thanks! Erik ----- Original Message -----=20 From: "Ridgeway, Alan" <Ala...@ca...> To: "Alan Murrell" <si...@ya...>; <use...@li...> Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 4:53 PM Subject: RE: [uml-user] Networking If each Guest OS (UML) is using tun/tap, then I would think the host would show (ifconfig -a) tap0, tap1, tap2, etc. Hence each guest os would use the address associated with the tap = tunnel. I my case I have not tried to use tun/tap per guest OS. I made one guest os with tun/tap, setup ip forwarding and iptables (NAT) and now all my other guest OSes use non-routables to each each other and use the NAT Guest OS to reach the outside network. Alan -----Original Message----- From: Alan Murrell [mailto:si...@ya...] Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 7:33 AM To: use...@li... Subject: RE: [uml-user] Networking Hi Alan :-) --- "Ridgeway, Alan" <Ala...@ca...> wrote: > When you set your routing on the guest OS, make > sure you ponit it to the tap0 interface. Would you use the same tap0 interface for all UML's on the host machine, or would each UML have their own tapX interface for that? I am thinking each one would use the tap0 interface, as it would be just like the host machine's eth0, no? If each UML is using the tap0 interface, would it still be possible to track bandwidth, CPU, etc. using something like MRTG, or for that, would it be better to setup a unique tapX interface for each UML? Thanks. Alan Murrell <si...@ya...> ______________________________________________________________________ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now. Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET. http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa00100006ave/direct;at.asp_061203_01/01 _______________________________________________ User-mode-linux-user mailing list Use...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/user-mode-linux-user ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now. Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET. http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa00100006ave/direct;at.asp_061203_01/01 _______________________________________________ User-mode-linux-user mailing list Use...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/user-mode-linux-user |
From: Ridgeway, A. <Ala...@ca...> - 2003-07-01 20:56:54
|
>Isn't this possible? >tap0 (213.189.19.161) <---TUN/TAP----> (213.189.19.161) eth0 I haven't tried it. Let me know if it works. I would think that the tunnel needs to have a different address at each point, but I don't know much about TUN/TAP. I think this would not work since the addresses would have different MAC addresses (one for the host OS and one for the guest OS.=20 But then the proxy arp may take care of that issue. As I said, let me know how it works for you. Alan -----Original Message----- From: Erik de Bruijn - LowVoice [mailto:Erik@LowVoice.nl] Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 1:21 PM To: Ridgeway, Alan; use...@li... Subject: Re: [uml-user] Networking (with public IPs) Hi Alan, Isn't the guest OS a separated from the host? If so why would I be = unable to use the single (and the same) public IP for both binding it on the Host = and on the GuestOS/UML? Isn't this possible? tap0 (213.189.19.161) <---TUN/TAP----> (213.189.19.161) eth0 Do I really need to use a different IP on both ends? Because I want to = avoid using NAT it seems a wase to use up 2 external/public IPs for each UML. It would seem logical to use the external IP in both machines. I don't = need internal IP adresses through the primairy tap device. I've just set up low-level minicom connections between the machines, if = in any case my eth devices become unreachable I'll be able to fix this. Now = I can fool around properly... I'll tell you the outcome soon. Erik ----- Original Message -----=20 From: "Ridgeway, Alan" <Ala...@ca...> To: "Erik de Bruijn - LowVoice" <Erik@LowVoice.nl>; <use...@li...> Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 9:26 PM Subject: RE: [uml-user] Networking (with public IPs) I believe the reason for 2 addresses per machine is due to the use of TUN/TAP. This is a tunnel. Each end of the tunnel needs an address. Hence it seems to work like this diagram: Host Guest tap0 (192.168.1.5) <--------> (192.168.1.6) eth0 Notice that one point of the tunnel is tap0 for the host OS, the other end of the tunnel is eth0 for the guest OS. Hence each guest OS need 2 addresses per TUN/TAP. This is why I used NAT. In other cases I have seen e-mails with one TUN/TAP guest OS as a bridge and the rest of the guest OSes as clients on the network. If anyone has a better explanation, please explain. Alan -----Original Message----- From: Erik de Bruijn - LowVoice [mailto:Erik@LowVoice.nl] Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 12:18 PM To: Ridgeway, Alan; use...@li... Subject: Re: [uml-user] Networking (with public IPs) Hi, I'd like to add a question to this networking thread. I DO intend to host UMLs with only public IPs, because I have a nice = range and I'll be able to connect to the directly and they can have their own = SSH, Apache, mailserver, etc. without any port mapping on the host. I don't want to use thet uml_net helper, since it's not as reliable. I = like to go to a prodution environment and want to try the most stable = solutions (unless they're impossible). There's one thing that confuses me though (maybe it shouldn't): -----/snippet from = http://user-mode-linux.sourceforge.net/networking.html /-------------- Configure the device IP (change IP addresses and device name to suit) host# ifconfig tap0 192.168.0.254 up Set up routing and arping if desired - this is my recipe, there are = other ways of doing the same thing [...] host# route add -host 192.168.0.253 dev tap0 host# bash -c 'echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf/tap0/proxy_arp' host# arp -Ds 192.168.0.253 eth0 pub ----------------------------------------- Why exactly does the example use two different IPs (.254 and .253)? When using public IPs, do I bind the tap0 device on the host to the same = address as I setup within the host? Thanks! Erik ----- Original Message -----=20 From: "Ridgeway, Alan" <Ala...@ca...> To: "Alan Murrell" <si...@ya...>; <use...@li...> Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 4:53 PM Subject: RE: [uml-user] Networking If each Guest OS (UML) is using tun/tap, then I would think the host would show (ifconfig -a) tap0, tap1, tap2, etc. Hence each guest os would use the address associated with the tap = tunnel. I my case I have not tried to use tun/tap per guest OS. I made one guest os with tun/tap, setup ip forwarding and iptables (NAT) and now all my other guest OSes use non-routables to each each other and use the NAT Guest OS to reach the outside network. Alan -----Original Message----- From: Alan Murrell [mailto:si...@ya...] Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 7:33 AM To: use...@li... Subject: RE: [uml-user] Networking Hi Alan :-) --- "Ridgeway, Alan" <Ala...@ca...> wrote: > When you set your routing on the guest OS, make > sure you ponit it to the tap0 interface. Would you use the same tap0 interface for all UML's on the host machine, or would each UML have their own tapX interface for that? I am thinking each one would use the tap0 interface, as it would be just like the host machine's eth0, no? If each UML is using the tap0 interface, would it still be possible to track bandwidth, CPU, etc. using something like MRTG, or for that, would it be better to setup a unique tapX interface for each UML? Thanks. Alan Murrell <si...@ya...> ______________________________________________________________________ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now. Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET. http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa00100006ave/direct;at.asp_061203_01/01 _______________________________________________ User-mode-linux-user mailing list Use...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/user-mode-linux-user ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now. Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET. http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa00100006ave/direct;at.asp_061203_01/01 _______________________________________________ User-mode-linux-user mailing list Use...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/user-mode-linux-user |
From: Patrick \Petschge\ K. <pet...@we...> - 2003-07-03 00:37:28
|
Hi, Ridgeway, Alan wrote: >>Isn't this possible? >>tap0 (192.168.0.101) <---TUN/TAP----> (192.168.0.101) eth0 > I haven't tried it. Let me know if it works. > I would think that the tunnel needs to have a different address > at each point, but I don't know much about TUN/TAP. I have tried this, but I couldn't figure out a working routing system. In the uml I always got | root@uml:/> ping -c 1 192.168.1.3 | PING 192.168.1.3 (192.168.1.3) from 192.168.0.101 : 56(84) bytes of data. | From 192.168.0.101: icmp_seq=1 Destination Host Unreachable | From 192.168.0.101 icmp_seq=1 Destination Host Unreachable If I set it up like this tap0 (192.168.0.100) <---TUN/TAP----> (192.168.0.101) eth0 it works like a charme. I don't understand why the extra ip adresse you need for tap0 is a problem. After all you can do it like this: ________ / \ | Internet | \________/ || || +--------+eth0+--------+ | | | HOST | | | | +-----------+ | | | | | UML | | | | +--+tap0+--+--+eth'0+--+ || || ##==========## with eth0 and eth'0 having public IP's and tap0 using a privat IP. HTH, Patrick "Petschge" Kilian -- "I'm glad to hear that this day has finally arrived. Because, I gotta tell ya, having survived 440 days of your lying and conniving, I wasn't sure if I could take much more." - Michael Moore on the s.c."moment of truth" in a letter to G.W. Bush |
From: Asim S. <asi...@ya...> - 2003-07-03 16:31:02
|
Hi, Does anyone know where I can find a UML patch for the 2.4.9-e.3 kernel (this ships with RedHat Advanced Server 2.1)?? Or how I can go about obtaining a 2.4.9-e.3um? Thanks, -- Asim ===== ___________________________________ Asim Shankar asi...@bi... http://www.geocities.com/asimshankar __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com |
From: Net L. <net...@li...> - 2003-07-03 16:41:30
|
On Thu, 3 Jul 2003, Asim Shankar wrote: > Hi, > > Does anyone know where I can find a UML patch for the 2.4.9-e.3 kernel > (this ships with RedHat Advanced Server 2.1)?? Or how I can go about > obtaining a 2.4.9-e.3um? I seriosly doubt that either exists. Why do you need it for that specific kernel? I'm running RHAS-2.1 in UML with normal UML kernels. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Lonni J Friedman net...@li... Linux Step-by-step & TyGeMo http://netllama.ipfox.com |
From: <ad...@ya...> - 2003-07-03 22:06:36
|
How do you do it ??? I haved tried to install two uml´s with RHAS 2.1 more times but I can´t do it ... (My host is a Debian host) Have you use umlbuilder to do it ??? --- Net Llama! <net...@li...> escribió: > On Thu, 3 Jul 2003, Asim Shankar wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Does anyone know where I can find a UML patch for > the 2.4.9-e.3 kernel > > (this ships with RedHat Advanced Server 2.1)?? Or > how I can go about > > obtaining a 2.4.9-e.3um? > > I seriosly doubt that either exists. Why do you > need it for that specific > kernel? I'm running RHAS-2.1 in UML with normal UML > kernels. > > -- > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Lonni J Friedman net...@li... > Linux Step-by-step & TyGeMo > http://netllama.ipfox.com > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built > ASP.NET sites including > Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are > available now. > Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual > Studio .NET. > http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa00100006ave/direct;at.asp_061203_01/01 > _______________________________________________ > User-mode-linux-user mailing list > Use...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/user-mode-linux-user ___________________________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger - Nueva versión GRATIS Super Webcam, voz, caritas animadas, y más... http://messenger.yahoo.es |
From: Ridgeway, A. <Ala...@ca...> - 2003-07-02 17:13:44
|
To use iptables in bridgeing, see the honeynet project: http://project.honeynet.org/papers/honeynet/tools/index.html Bridge / IPTable's patch. This patch will allow your IPTables to work in = bridging mode. Most kernels do not support this feature, and thus = require this kernel patch. This should be able to enable this ability. Alan -----Original Message----- From: Jeff Dike [mailto:jd...@ad...] Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 9:24 AM To: ma...@po... Cc: Erik de Bruijn - LowVoice; Ridgeway, Alan; use...@li... Subject: Re: [uml-user] Networking (with public IPs)=20 ma...@tw... said: > Is there any reason not to use bridging (in the host)? Then you don't > need to setup any IP address on the host side of the taps, the ARP > takes care of itself... life is pretty good. Yeah, it's great when arps take care of themselves, except when a UML user decides to set the UML IP to that of your gateway (or mail server, = or=20 name server, or ...). Chris Aker pointed that out to me yesterday. You need some extra filewalling on the bridges that you don't need on an unbridged TAP device. Jeff |
From: Asim S. <asi...@ya...> - 2003-07-02 21:01:27
|
Hi, I am a bit confused about how UML works. There is a kernel source on the host which we compile into the "linux" binary, let's call this Kernel-A. Then, in the root filesystem we have another vmlinuz (let's call this Kernel-B). Now, when I start a UML client, then do a client# uname -a Then I get the kernel version of kernel-A (2...-um) Does that mean that the kernel on the root filesystem of the client is pretty much useless? Do applications on the client see the kernel as Kernel-A or B? Thanks, -- Asim ===== ___________________________________ Asim Shankar asi...@bi... http://www.geocities.com/asimshankar __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com |
From: Net L. <net...@li...> - 2003-07-02 21:14:14
|
On Wed, 2 Jul 2003, Asim Shankar wrote: > Hi, > > I am a bit confused about how UML works. There is a kernel source on > the host which we compile into the "linux" binary, let's call this > Kernel-A. Then, in the root filesystem we have another vmlinuz (let's > call this Kernel-B). > > Now, when I start a UML client, then do a > client# uname -a > Then I get the kernel version of kernel-A (2...-um) > > Does that mean that the kernel on the root filesystem of the client is > pretty much useless? Do applications on the client see the kernel as > Kernel-A or B? The kernel on the host isn't useless, its just not hte kernel that's booting UML. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Lonni J Friedman net...@li... Linux Step-by-step & TyGeMo http://netllama.ipfox.com |
From: Asim S. <asi...@ya...> - 2003-07-02 21:25:31
|
hi, > The kernel on the host isn't useless, its just not hte kernel that's > booting UML. In that case, I'm still confused. uname -a, AFAIK does an ioctl to get the kernel version. As an example, I used "user_mode_linux-2.4.19.5um-0.i386.rpm". My host kernel was 2.4.18-4smp. The rootfs for the UML machine was from RedHat Advanced Server 2.1, which has the vmlinuz for kernel 2.4.9-e.3. When I run a client with this rootfs, uname -a shows "2.4.19-5um". Please bear with me hear and pardon my questions, but what exactly does the "kernel that's booting UML" mean? If I understand you correctly, the kernel that's booting up the UML shouldn't really affect things for the uml client once its started? In the case of RH Advanced Server 2.1, as far as the UML client is concerned, I'm using kernel 2.4.9-e.3 even though uname -a shows otherwise?? Thanks for your patience, -- Asim ===== ___________________________________ Asim Shankar asi...@bi... http://www.geocities.com/asimshankar __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com |
From: Net L. <net...@li...> - 2003-07-02 21:29:48
|
On Wed, 2 Jul 2003, Asim Shankar wrote: > hi, > > > The kernel on the host isn't useless, its just not hte kernel that's > > booting UML. > In that case, I'm still confused. > > uname -a, AFAIK does an ioctl to get the kernel version. As an example, > I used "user_mode_linux-2.4.19.5um-0.i386.rpm". My host kernel was > 2.4.18-4smp. The rootfs for the UML machine was from RedHat Advanced > Server 2.1, which has the vmlinuz for kernel 2.4.9-e.3. When I run a > client with this rootfs, uname -a shows "2.4.19-5um". > > Please bear with me hear and pardon my questions, but what exactly does > the "kernel that's booting UML" mean? It means, the kernel that's booting UML, and running the OS that you're using UML for. I'm not sure how else to explain this. > If I understand you correctly, the kernel that's booting up the UML > shouldn't really affect things for the uml client once its started? In > the case of RH Advanced Server 2.1, as far as the UML client is > concerned, I'm using kernel 2.4.9-e.3 even though uname -a shows > otherwise?? No. Its using the 2.4.19 that you're runing. The 2.4.9e3 that comes with RHAS has no place in the entire picture unless you recompile it with the neccesary UML patch. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Lonni J Friedman net...@li... Linux Step-by-step & TyGeMo http://netllama.ipfox.com |
From: Asim S. <asi...@ya...> - 2003-07-02 21:41:03
|
Hi, I'm sorry, I must've misread your earlier statement > The kernel on the host isn't useless, its just not hte kernel > that's booting UML. What I meant to ask was that the kernel on the root filesystem of the client, i.e, the vmlinuz-... file on the root filesystem of the client is useless. Correct? Thanks for your patience, -- Asim ===== ___________________________________ Asim Shankar asi...@bi... http://www.geocities.com/asimshankar __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com |
From: Net Llama! <net...@li...> - 2003-07-02 23:07:25
|
On 07/02/03 14:30, Asim Shankar wrote: > Hi, > > I'm sorry, I must've misread your earlier statement >> The kernel on the host isn't useless, its just not hte kernel >> that's booting UML. > > What I meant to ask was that the kernel on the root filesystem of the > client, i.e, the vmlinuz-... file on the root filesystem of the client > is useless. Correct? Well, if you're not using SKAS, then the kernel on the host is useless as far as UML is concerned. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ L. Friedman net...@li... Linux Step-by-step & TyGeMo: http://netllama.ipfox.com 4:05pm up 4 days, 30 min, 1 user, load average: 0.26, 0.12, 0.04 |
From: Nuno S. <nun...@vg...> - 2003-07-02 23:30:54
|
Hi! Asim Shankar wrote: > Hi, > > I'm sorry, I must've misread your earlier statement > >>The kernel on the host isn't useless, its just not hte kernel >>that's booting UML. > > > What I meant to ask was that the kernel on the root filesystem of the > client, i.e, the vmlinuz-... file on the root filesystem of the client > is useless. Correct? > It's just another file. You can delete it and UML will work fine. It's not usefull when you're running UML. > Thanks for your patience, > > -- Asim > > Regards, Nuno Silva |
From: Jim B. <jf...@nf...> - 2003-07-02 23:31:50
|
On Wed, 2003-07-02 at 17:30, Asim Shankar wrote: > Hi, > > I'm sorry, I must've misread your earlier statement > > The kernel on the host isn't useless, its just not hte kernel > > that's booting UML. > > What I meant to ask was that the kernel on the root filesystem of the > client, i.e, the vmlinuz-... file on the root filesystem of the client > is useless. Correct? I believe it (the kernel on the root-fs that the UML guest OS is using) is largly unused. It does not represent the kernel you are running in the UML guest. The term 'host' seems to be used for the system running directly on the hardware. When you run './linux udb0=.....' that is often called the guestOS. When you log into the guest after running 'linux' and run 'uname -r' you'll see the version corresponding to that 'linux' executable you are running. |
From: Alan M. <si...@ya...> - 2003-07-04 04:22:06
|
Martin Maney wrote: > Is there any reason not to use bridging (in the > host)? Then you don't need to setup any IP > address on the host side of the taps, the ARP > takes care of itself... life is pretty good. That is what I am trying to do. I have another thread that describes this, but I will re-iterate here again: On the host, I have the following commands execute at boot time to setup the briding: brctl addbr br0 ifconfig br0 192.168.1.254 netmask 255.255.255.0 up route add default gw 192.168.1.1 ifconfig eth0 0.0.0.0 promisc up brctl stp br0 off brctl setfd br0 1 brctl sethello br0 1 brctl addif br0 eth0 echo "1" > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward So far, so good (host is reachable, and I can SSH in). Now, I have two guest OS's: uml-tom (192.168.1.2) uml-harry (192.168.1.3) For 'uml-tom', I execute the following: tunctl -u tom -t ext-tom0 ifconfig ext-tom0 0.0.0.0 promisc up brctl addif br0 ext-tom0 screen -S $name -d -m linux ubd0=root_fs ubd1=swap_fs mem=96M umid=tom eth0=tuntap,ext-tom0 So 'uml-tom' boots, I have his 'eth0' configured with '192.168.1.2', and he is pingable. As you say, "life is good" :-) Now, I do exactly the same thing to boot up 'uml-harry', EXCEPT all references int he above to "tom" are replaced with "harry", and he is configured with IP address '192.168.1.3'. Now, once uml-harry is booted, he becomes pingable. Great, it seems to be working. However, when I go back to ping uml-tom, he is suddenly no longer pingable, even though he is still up, and I can log in to him from the login prompt via 'screen -r uml-tom'. I am obviously not doing something correctly here, but I cannot figure out what. The commands I have given above are the same from both Dave Coulson's site (http://uml.openconsultancy.com), as well as from <http://user-mode-linux.sf.net/networking.html>. Of course my tap references are different, but otherwise they are the same. Ayy ideas, pointers (URLS), etc. that would be of help are greatly appreciated. TIA, Alan Murrell <si...@ya...> ______________________________________________________________________ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca |
From: Alan M. <si...@ya...> - 2003-07-04 05:17:27
|
Okay, I've done a little more testing, and it turns out I was a tad mistaken. What is actually happening is this: When both guest OS's are up and running, their networking is still up, but they seem to interfere with each other. I logged in to each guest OS, and started a ping out on each, which was working. On the host OS, I started a ping on each of the guest OSs' IP addresses. What I found was this: uml-tom would respond to the ping, but uml-harry would not. The uml-harry would respond, but uml-tom would not. And so it would alternate. What seems to be happening here is that each guest OS is interfering with the other when it arps. Unfortunately, I am not sure how to correct this? Any ideas? Can anyone who is successfully running multiple UMLs on a host system using this method of tuntap post their "recipe", as I appear to missing a step somewhere. TIA. Alan Murrell <si...@ya...> ALan Murrell ______________________________________________________________________ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca |
From: Wim B. <bo...@bo...> - 2003-07-04 07:25:06
|
> When both guest OS's are up and running, their > networking is still up, but they seem to interfere > with each other. >=20 > Unfortunately, I am not sure how to correct this? Any > ideas? Can anyone who is successfully running > multiple UMLs on a host system using this method of > tuntap post their "recipe", as I appear to missing a > step somewhere. I think you are missing the MAC-adress, I think both of your hosts using = the same MAC adress. I do the same as you, and i start my UMLs with: eth0=3Dtuntap,tap-name,FE:FD:00:00:00:$num Where $num is unique for each UML I have read in this mailing list that the UML-kernel should be able to assign the mac=20 address at creation time out of the ip address, but i have not tested = that. --=20 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Wim Bonis ,+'^'+, Telefon:0631-31662-0 NetwerkAnalyse und SystemDesign Mobil:0170-5664234 +,.,+ Privat:06301-791868 email: bo...@bo... Kaiserslautern/Mehlbach |
From: Alan M. <si...@ya...> - 2003-07-04 13:33:31
|
Hello, --- Wim Bonis <bo...@bo...> wrote: > I think you are missing the MAC-adress, I think > both of your hosts using the same MAC adress. That could very well be the case. > I do the same as you, and i start my UMLs with: > > eth0=tuntap,tap-name,FE:FD:00:00:00:$num > > Where $num is unique for each UML Yes, that was the missing piece! I have both UMLs up and running, pinging at the same time. Also, their MAC-addresses are definately different (nothing close to 'FE:FD:00:00:00:$num' (I of course replace $num with a two-digit number), but as long as it works, I'm a happy campter :-) > I have read in this mailing list that the > UML-kernel should be able to assign the mac > address at creation time out of the ip address, but > i have not tested that. I imagine this should be possible, since uml_nethelper is able to do so when you do 'eth0=tuntap,,,host.ip.add.ress'. Bu I won't worry about that just now :-) Alan Murrell ______________________________________________________________________ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca |
From: Martin M. <uml...@tw...> - 2003-07-04 16:27:16
|
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 09:33:26AM -0400, Alan Murrell wrote: > --- Wim Bonis <bo...@bo...> wrote: > > I have read in this mailing list that the > > UML-kernel should be able to assign the mac > > address at creation time out of the ip address, but > > i have not tested that. > > I imagine this should be possible, since uml_nethelper > is able to do so when you do > 'eth0=tuntap,,,host.ip.add.ress'. Bu I won't worry > about that just now :-) Ah! All is now clear! :-) When UML goes to create a MAC address for a tap device, it has no idea what IP address will be assigned to the guest side - that's handled in the guest's startup scripts, while the MAC address has to be setup relatively early in the boot. So it uses the host-side address, of course... which is 0.0.0.0 for all the devices that are setup for bridging, so of course the two (or more) guests assign their tap the same MAC address. I am embarassed because I had smacked my nose on that wall some months ago, but forgot about it until Wim mentioned it. :-( Hmmmm, this looks like something about which a sentence or two should be added to the networking.html document - bridging is described in the "TUN/TAP with a preconfigured tap device" section in such a way as to have this problem if you try to setup two guests. And it's one more exceptional case to list in section 6.3 of the HOWTO. I also note in passing that you might like to change the title of that to "Specifying ethernet _MAC_ addresses", as that is the standard term. Likewise, "MAC address" should replace "hardware address" and other variants in that section. Or am I the only one who would search for that word? :-) -- Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof. -- JKG |
From: Erik de B. - L. <Erik@LowVoice.nl> - 2003-07-01 20:57:39
|
Hi Alan, Isn't the guest OS a separated from the host? If so why would I be unable to use the single (and the same) public IP for both binding it on the Host and on the GuestOS/UML? Isn't this possible? tap0 (213.189.19.161) <---TUN/TAP----> (213.189.19.161) eth0 Do I really need to use a different IP on both ends? Because I want to avoid using NAT it seems a wase to use up 2 external/public IPs for each UML. It would seem logical to use the external IP in both machines. I don't need internal IP adresses through the primairy tap device. I've just set up low-level minicom connections between the machines, if in any case my eth devices become unreachable I'll be able to fix this. Now I can fool around properly... I'll tell you the outcome soon. Erik ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ridgeway, Alan" <Ala...@ca...> To: "Erik de Bruijn - LowVoice" <Erik@LowVoice.nl>; <use...@li...> Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 9:26 PM Subject: RE: [uml-user] Networking (with public IPs) I believe the reason for 2 addresses per machine is due to the use of TUN/TAP. This is a tunnel. Each end of the tunnel needs an address. Hence it seems to work like this diagram: Host Guest tap0 (192.168.1.5) <--------> (192.168.1.6) eth0 Notice that one point of the tunnel is tap0 for the host OS, the other end of the tunnel is eth0 for the guest OS. Hence each guest OS need 2 addresses per TUN/TAP. This is why I used NAT. In other cases I have seen e-mails with one TUN/TAP guest OS as a bridge and the rest of the guest OSes as clients on the network. If anyone has a better explanation, please explain. Alan -----Original Message----- From: Erik de Bruijn - LowVoice [mailto:Erik@LowVoice.nl] Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 12:18 PM To: Ridgeway, Alan; use...@li... Subject: Re: [uml-user] Networking (with public IPs) Hi, I'd like to add a question to this networking thread. I DO intend to host UMLs with only public IPs, because I have a nice range and I'll be able to connect to the directly and they can have their own SSH, Apache, mailserver, etc. without any port mapping on the host. I don't want to use thet uml_net helper, since it's not as reliable. I like to go to a prodution environment and want to try the most stable solutions (unless they're impossible). There's one thing that confuses me though (maybe it shouldn't): -----/snippet from http://user-mode-linux.sourceforge.net/networking.html /-------------- Configure the device IP (change IP addresses and device name to suit) host# ifconfig tap0 192.168.0.254 up Set up routing and arping if desired - this is my recipe, there are other ways of doing the same thing [...] host# route add -host 192.168.0.253 dev tap0 host# bash -c 'echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf/tap0/proxy_arp' host# arp -Ds 192.168.0.253 eth0 pub ----------------------------------------- Why exactly does the example use two different IPs (.254 and .253)? When using public IPs, do I bind the tap0 device on the host to the same address as I setup within the host? Thanks! Erik ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ridgeway, Alan" <Ala...@ca...> To: "Alan Murrell" <si...@ya...>; <use...@li...> Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 4:53 PM Subject: RE: [uml-user] Networking If each Guest OS (UML) is using tun/tap, then I would think the host would show (ifconfig -a) tap0, tap1, tap2, etc. Hence each guest os would use the address associated with the tap tunnel. I my case I have not tried to use tun/tap per guest OS. I made one guest os with tun/tap, setup ip forwarding and iptables (NAT) and now all my other guest OSes use non-routables to each each other and use the NAT Guest OS to reach the outside network. Alan -----Original Message----- From: Alan Murrell [mailto:si...@ya...] Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 7:33 AM To: use...@li... Subject: RE: [uml-user] Networking Hi Alan :-) --- "Ridgeway, Alan" <Ala...@ca...> wrote: > When you set your routing on the guest OS, make > sure you ponit it to the tap0 interface. Would you use the same tap0 interface for all UML's on the host machine, or would each UML have their own tapX interface for that? I am thinking each one would use the tap0 interface, as it would be just like the host machine's eth0, no? If each UML is using the tap0 interface, would it still be possible to track bandwidth, CPU, etc. using something like MRTG, or for that, would it be better to setup a unique tapX interface for each UML? Thanks. Alan Murrell <si...@ya...> ______________________________________________________________________ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now. Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET. http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa00100006ave/direct;at.asp_061203_01/01 _______________________________________________ User-mode-linux-user mailing list Use...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/user-mode-linux-user ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now. Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET. http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa00100006ave/direct;at.asp_061203_01/01 _______________________________________________ User-mode-linux-user mailing list Use...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/user-mode-linux-user |
From: BlaisorBlade <bla...@ya...> - 2003-07-08 18:27:01
|
Erik de Bruijn - LowVoice wrote: > > Isn't this possible? > tap0 (213.189.19.161) <---TUN/TAP----> (213.189.19.161) eth0 > > Do I really need to use a different IP on both ends? Yes, because a packet to 213.189.19.161 would "get confused". But if you say, on the host, tap0, tap1, tap2, ...tap<n> get the same IP, and get an IP which is already used by the host, it works. It is widely used. I.e., if the host has IP "$Host_IP", you can start ALL UML's with eth0=tuntap,,,$Host_IP. And this is not bad, because the $Host_IP refer always to the same host. By the way(someone asked this some posts ago): yes, each UML uses its own tap<n>. > Because I want to > avoid using NAT it seems a wase to use up 2 external/public IPs for each > UML. It would seem logical to use the external IP in both machines. I don't > need internal IP adresses through the primairy tap device. -- cat <<EOSIGN Paolo Giarrusso, aka Blaisorblade Linux Kernel 2.4.20/2.5.63 on a Mandrake box; Linux registered user n. 292729 EOSIGN |