Ian Pratt
2005-Sep-15 19:05 UTC
RE: [Xen-users] veth0 is from netback and vifu.0 is fromthebridge-utils?
> That''s great, except when you need *two* bridges, for two > independent subnets, and there is no, as far as I can see, peth1.You can have multiple vethX interfaces on recent builds -- see netback/loopback.c. I think the current default is a rather miserly 1 (and should be increased), but can be set on the command line. Ian> Em Wednesday 14 September 2005 16:30, John Wilson escreveu: > > Yo, > > > > I had big problems with this myself, but now as far as I can tell, > > veth0 (renamed to eth0 in the v recent releases) is the virtual nic > > for dom0 which corresponds to the virtual eth0 nics in the > domU''s (the > > physical nic itself has been renamed to peth0). > > > > The vifU.N''s are the dom0 links to the virtual nics ethN in > domU, and > > aren''t to be treated as proper network interfaces in thier > own right. > > If you assign an IP address to, say, vif1.0 and attempt to > communicate > > with eth0 in dom1, you can ping between them and such, but > ssh nor vnc > > wont work, complaining for the most part about bad checksums. > > > > The vif0.0 interface in dom0 is linked to dom0''s virtual nic, veth0 > > (or eth0 in the recent builds). > > > > Now... The correct way to interface the cards and provide > connectivity > > between the domains and the outside world is to attach all > the vifU.N > > interfaces to a bridge in dom0 (normally xen-br0) together with the > > physical nic, eth0 (or peth0 recently). IP addresses are > then assigned > > to the eth0 links and inter-domain sshing, vncing and communication > > with the outside world all result. > > > > Here''s a badly drawn diagram to illustrate... > > > > ____________________________ _____________________ > > > > |dom0 | |dom1 | > > | _______ | | ________ | > > | > > | |eth0 | | | |eth0 | | > > | |IP_____| +--------------+-------+------|IP______| | > > | > > | ____|_______|_____________ | | | > > | > > || ___|___ ___|___ _______ || | | > > || > > |||vif0.0 |vif1.0 |peth0 | || | | > > |||_______|_______|_______| || | | > > || > > ||xen-br0_____________|_____|| | | > > | > > |_____________________|______| |_____________________| > > > > ______________________|_____________________>>LAN>>> > > > > > > I''ve used eth0 as the virtual nics and peth0 as the physical nic. > > IP has been used to denote devices with an IP address. All the > > interfaces there are automatically generated by Xen, and I used > > ifconfig to statically set IP addresses (because I was > having trouble > > with our lab DHCP server, although it was assigning > addresses to the > > correct cards), and brctl addif xen-br0 vif1.0 etc. to add > the vifs to > > the bridge, because for some reason Xen wasn''t... > > > > Well thats my contribution for this evening. > > > > > > > > John > > > > > > > > P.S. Official documentation/Howto/wiki is a little on the > sparse side > > for this Ian. > > > > Quoting Anthony.Golia@MorganStanley.com: > > > On Thu, 8 Sep 2005, Ian Pratt wrote: > > >> > Hi. what creates veth0 and vifu.0, when? what''s the > underlying > > >> > architecture behind them? Just trying to understand the > > >> > internals. > > >> > > >> netback/loopback.c creates them. > > >> > > >> It''s effectively a point to point link, allowing domain 0 to > > >> connect on to the bridge in the same manner that other > domains do. > > >> (before, packets to domain 0 were short-cutted and came off the > > >> bridge directly, which could lead to traffic from other domains > > >> being stalled if a lot of traffic was destined to user > space in dom0. > > > > > > thx. what''s the diff betwn the two (veth0 and vifu.0) ? > > > > > >> Best, > > >> Ian > > >> > > >> ) > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Anthony > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Xen-users mailing list > > > Xen-users@lists.xensource.com > > > http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Xen-users mailing list > > Xen-users@lists.xensource.com > > http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users > > -- > Ramiro Brito Willmersdorf Dep. Engenharia Mecânica/UFPE > ramiro@willmersdorf.net tel: +55 81 2126-8231e239 > > _______________________________________________ > Xen-users mailing list > Xen-users@lists.xensource.com > http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users >_______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
Ramiro Brito Willmersdorf
2005-Sep-15 20:57 UTC
Re: [Xen-users] veth0 is from netback and vifu.0 is fromthebridge-utils?
That''s excellent. I''ll wait for Rik to pick this one up for a testing .rpm, though, because I never *ever* managed to build a RedHat kernel with external patches :) Em Thursday 15 September 2005 16:05, Ian Pratt escreveu:> > That''s great, except when you need *two* bridges, for two > > independent subnets, and there is no, as far as I can see, peth1. > > You can have multiple vethX interfaces on recent builds -- see > netback/loopback.c. I think the current default is a rather miserly 1 (and > should be increased), but can be set on the command line. > > Ian-- Ramiro Brito Willmersdorf Dep. Engenharia Mecânica/UFPE ramiro@willmersdorf.net tel: +55 81 2126-8231e239 _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users