similar to: bonding tap devices

Hi Tinc Mailing-Group, Having set up the kernel correctly, and got tinc running successfully, I am now trying to get two VPNs running at once. Hence I need to have two ethertap devices ( /dev/tap0 and /dev/tap1 ). The first tap0 device was created thus: mknod -m 600 /dev/tap0 c 36 16 chown 0.0 /dev/tap0 The second tap1 device was created too: mknod -m 600 /dev/tap1 c 36 17 chown 0.0 /dev/tap1

Hello. I am trying to get multi paths running, i.e I want to specify 2 paths from a particular node to another. To test this, I am setting up the following scenario: I create 2 tap devices tap0 = 10.1.1.1/32 netmask 255.255.255.0 tap1 = 10.2.2.2/32 netmask 255.255.255.0 I then issue the route command: ip route add 10.3.3.3/32 nexthop via 10.1.1.2 nexthop via 10.2.2.3 The route table

Hi all. I would need to use a single physical interface on a Linux box to manage two different IP addresses (belonging to two separate logical subnets) with two different MAC address. (I need to emulate te presence of two separate physical interfaceses for a PC on the same LAN, at layer 2 and layer 3). Is it possible to use the linux ethernet bridging code and two tap interfaces for this

[This email is either empty or too large to be displayed at this time]

We used to stop the handling of tx when the number of pending DMAs exceeds VHOST_MAX_PEND. This is used to reduce the memory occupation of both host and guest. But it was too aggressive in some cases, since any delay or blocking of a single packet may delay or block the guest transmission. Consider the following setup: +-----+ +-----+ | VM1 | | VM2 | +--+--+

We used to stop the handling of tx when the number of pending DMAs exceeds VHOST_MAX_PEND. This is used to reduce the memory occupation of both host and guest. But it was too aggressive in some cases, since any delay or blocking of a single packet may delay or block the guest transmission. Consider the following setup: +-----+ +-----+ | VM1 | | VM2 | +--+--+

On 03/10/2014 04:03 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 01:28:27PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: >> > We used to stop the handling of tx when the number of pending DMAs >> > exceeds VHOST_MAX_PEND. This is used to reduce the memory occupation >> > of both host and guest. But it was too aggressive in some cases, since >> > any delay or blocking

On 03/10/2014 04:03 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 01:28:27PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: >> > We used to stop the handling of tx when the number of pending DMAs >> > exceeds VHOST_MAX_PEND. This is used to reduce the memory occupation >> > of both host and guest. But it was too aggressive in some cases, since >> > any delay or blocking

We used to stop the handling of tx when the number of pending DMAs exceeds VHOST_MAX_PEND. This is used to reduce the memory occupation of both host and guest. But it was too aggressive in some cases, since any delay or blocking of a single packet may delay or block the guest transmission. Consider the following setup: +-----+ +-----+ | VM1 | | VM2 | +--+--+

We used to stop the handling of tx when the number of pending DMAs exceeds VHOST_MAX_PEND. This is used to reduce the memory occupation of both host and guest. But it was too aggressive in some cases, since any delay or blocking of a single packet may delay or block the guest transmission. Consider the following setup: +-----+ +-----+ | VM1 | | VM2 | +--+--+

On 02/25/2014 09:57 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 02:53:58PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: >> We used to stop the handling of tx when the number of pending DMAs >> exceeds VHOST_MAX_PEND. This is used to reduce the memory occupation >> of both host and guest. But it was too aggressive in some cases, since >> any delay or blocking of a single packet

On 02/25/2014 09:57 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 02:53:58PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: >> We used to stop the handling of tx when the number of pending DMAs >> exceeds VHOST_MAX_PEND. This is used to reduce the memory occupation >> of both host and guest. But it was too aggressive in some cases, since >> any delay or blocking of a single packet

On 02/26/2014 02:32 PM, Qin Chuanyu wrote: > On 2014/2/26 13:53, Jason Wang wrote: >> On 02/25/2014 09:57 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >>> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 02:53:58PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: >>>> We used to stop the handling of tx when the number of pending DMAs >>>> exceeds VHOST_MAX_PEND. This is used to reduce the memory occupation

On 02/26/2014 02:32 PM, Qin Chuanyu wrote: > On 2014/2/26 13:53, Jason Wang wrote: >> On 02/25/2014 09:57 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >>> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 02:53:58PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: >>>> We used to stop the handling of tx when the number of pending DMAs >>>> exceeds VHOST_MAX_PEND. This is used to reduce the memory occupation

Ok. I''m knocking down one problem at a time. I''ve managed to figure out how to bridge my tap0 and my eth1 with br0. This is good stuff. But if I have shorewall running, I can''t ping the local network at all. If I have shorewall not running, I can ping the local network. Here is my setup. Firewall/NAT box: eth0 - DHCP from cable provider eth1 -

Is it possible to negate the "match" to the ip? I want to match all traffic to dport 80 NOT going to dst 1.2.3.4: $TC filter add dev ${DEV_IFB} parent 1:0 prio 2 protocol ip u32 \ match ip protocol 0x6 0xff \ match ip dport 80 0xffff \ match ip dst 1.2.3.4/32 \ classid 1:14 I can''t find it in the docs. I tried "!" "\!" and "not" in several

Good day, I have gone through a couple of the HOWTO''s on how to get this to work, but I am still sitting with a very strange (for me) issue. If two clients connect via OpenVPN (bridged), they can access each other without any problems, but neither of them can access the server, nor any system behind it. I am fairly sure it is a Shorewall issue, but I am very new to Shorewall, having

Hello, I thinking about using PCI passthrough to dedicated a domU as firewall. I understand PCI passthrough concept. When done, my domU will see network card and the dom0 won''t any more. So I''ll be able to filter all trafic from outside, since it will go through network domU. Then, how will I be able to connect other domU (and maybe dom0) to the network domU ? In a normal way,

Hello I have two linux machines connected via 2 dsl lines (bonded) 192.168.0.1-eth0-dsl---2Mbit---dsl-eth0-192.168.0.2 ^-eth1-dsl---2Mbit---dsl-eth1-^ so the final figure is something like this: 192.168.0.1-bond0---4Mbit---bond0-192.168.0.2 I can only use arp monitoring for fail checking - if one dsl line fails - automatically use only the other one. I set up everything correctly (i

On 02/26/2014 05:23 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 03:11:21PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: >> > On 02/26/2014 02:32 PM, Qin Chuanyu wrote: >>> > >On 2014/2/26 13:53, Jason Wang wrote: >>>> > >>On 02/25/2014 09:57 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >>>>> > >>>On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 02:53:58PM +0800, Jason