similar to: linux bridging problem: how to emulate 2 separate interfaces on a single one?

Hello list, Please don''t shoot me. I know I''m doing something with bonding that bonding wasn''t made for. I just want to give it a try. I want a simple mechanism to have a failover on a 24Mbit line to a 2Mbit line in case the 24Mbit line goes down. Between A and B there are two lines: a 24Mbit and a 2Mbit. I use two OpenVPN tunnels with tap devices: +-- tap0 (A)---

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

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

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

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,

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 | +--+--+

I am trying to make the following connection: WindowsXP(OpenVPN-Client)->shorewall->Internet->LinksysWRTG->OpenVPN-Server ...of course the reverse path too. The OpenVPN server is running in bridge mode. When the openVPN client is launched it looks like a successful connection is made. The openVPN client gets assigned an address from the openVPN server pool. The OpenVPN

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

Hi, Thanks for infos. My concern is the following : In order to establish datas exchanges between hosts and guest , I'll add a channel device to a running Guest ( as I learned from you that it's possible to do that without stopping the Guest). When the guest migrates to another host , this one must be able to retrieve the channel device parameters to be able to dialog with the

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 -

Here is the scenario: I have one server with kernel 2.4.24 with a bridge br0 made of 2 interfaces, eth0 and tap0 (the last is an OpenVPN tunnel), and one remote computer connetting through tap0. If I assign a static IP to the remote computer, the bridge works perfecly (so I think the problem is not OpenVPN-related). If I start a DHCPd on the server and I configure the remote client to get the