Hello Xen Users and Developers,
I am running 3 guest domains on a node. Following is the information:
[root@dmz02 fedora]# xm list
Name ID Mem(MiB) VCPUs State
Time(s)
Domain-0 0 255 4 r-----
66.2
vcl-dmz02 1 256 1 -b----
1.1
vcn-dmz02 6 256 1 -b----
0.3
vcs-dmz02 7 256 1 -b----
0.3
I am trying to perform live migration using the command:
(dmz03.ornl.gov is also running Xen-3.0.3 and is running 3 guest domains
of it''s own)
xm migrate --live vcs-dmz02 dmz03.ornl.gov
Error: can''t connect: No route to host
Usage: xm migrate <Domain> <Host>
Migrate a domain to another machine.
Options:
-h, --help Print this help.
-l, --live Use live migration.
-p=portnum, --port=portnum
Use specified port for migration.
-r=MBIT, --resource=MBIT
Set level of resource usage for migration.
So, apparently dmz03.ornl.gov cannot be seen from dmz02.ornl.gov.
However, when I run "ping", I GET THE FOLLOWING OUTPUT:
[root@dmz02 fedora]# ping dmz03.ornl.gov
PING dmz03.ornl.gov (160.91.40.231) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from dmz03.ornl.gov (160.91.40.231): icmp_seq=0 ttl=64
time=0.142 ms
64 bytes from dmz03.ornl.gov (160.91.40.231): icmp_seq=1 ttl=64
time=0.099 ms
64 bytes from dmz03.ornl.gov (160.91.40.231): icmp_seq=2 ttl=64
time=0.104 ms
64 bytes from dmz03.ornl.gov (160.91.40.231): icmp_seq=3 ttl=64
time=0.099 ms
64 bytes from dmz03.ornl.gov (160.91.40.231): icmp_seq=4 ttl=64
time=0.098 ms
64 bytes from dmz03.ornl.gov (160.91.40.231): icmp_seq=5 ttl=64
time=0.099 ms
64 bytes from dmz03.ornl.gov (160.91.40.231): icmp_seq=6 ttl=64
time=0.122 ms
64 bytes from dmz03.ornl.gov (160.91.40.231): icmp_seq=7 ttl=64
time=0.098 ms
64 bytes from dmz03.ornl.gov (160.91.40.231): icmp_seq=8 ttl=64
time=0.099 ms
64 bytes from dmz03.ornl.gov (160.91.40.231): icmp_seq=9 ttl=64
time=0.098 ms
64 bytes from dmz03.ornl.gov (160.91.40.231): icmp_seq=10 ttl=64
time=0.098 ms
64 bytes from dmz03.ornl.gov (160.91.40.231): icmp_seq=11 ttl=64
time=0.098 ms
64 bytes from dmz03.ornl.gov (160.91.40.231): icmp_seq=12 ttl=64
time=0.102 ms
64 bytes from dmz03.ornl.gov (160.91.40.231): icmp_seq=13 ttl=64
time=0.099 ms
64 bytes from dmz03.ornl.gov (160.91.40.231): icmp_seq=14 ttl=64
time=0.099 ms
64 bytes from dmz03.ornl.gov (160.91.40.231): icmp_seq=15 ttl=64
time=0.098 ms
64 bytes from dmz03.ornl.gov (160.91.40.231): icmp_seq=16 ttl=64
time=0.097 ms
64 bytes from dmz03.ornl.gov (160.91.40.231): icmp_seq=17 ttl=64
time=0.098 ms
64 bytes from dmz03.ornl.gov (160.91.40.231): icmp_seq=18 ttl=64
time=0.098 ms
64 bytes from dmz03.ornl.gov (160.91.40.231): icmp_seq=19 ttl=64
time=0.097 ms
Can someone please suggest what the problem might be?
Thanks,
Nikhil
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
I suggest you research what ports Xen migration occurs on, then check that these ports are not being blocked. Ryan. Bhatia, Nikhil wrote:> > Hello Xen Users and Developers, > > I am running 3 guest domains on a node. Following is the information: > > [*root@dmz02 fedora]# xm list* > > *Name ID Mem(MiB) VCPUs State Time(s)* > > *Domain-0 0 255 4 r----- 66.2* > > *vcl-dmz02 1 256 1 -b---- 1.1* > > *vcn-dmz02 6 256 1 -b---- 0.3* > > *vcs-dmz02 7 256 1 -b---- 0.3* > > I am trying to perform live migration using the command: > > (dmz03.ornl.gov is also running Xen-3.0.3 and is running 3 guest > domains of it’s own) > > *xm migrate --live vcs-dmz02 dmz03.ornl.gov* > > *Error: can''t connect: No route to host* > > *Usage: xm migrate <Domain> <Host>* > > * * > > *Migrate a domain to another machine.* > > * * > > *Options:* > > * * > > *-h, --help Print this help.* > > *-l, --live Use live migration.* > > *-p=portnum, --port=portnum* > > * Use specified port for migration.* > > *-r=MBIT, --resource=MBIT* > > * Set level of resource usage for migration.* > > * * > > * * > > * * > > So, apparently dmz03.ornl.gov cannot be seen from dmz02.ornl.gov. > However, when I run “ping”, I GET THE FOLLOWING OUTPUT: > > [root@dmz02 fedora]# ping dmz03.ornl.gov > > PING dmz03.ornl.gov (160.91.40.231) 56(84) bytes of data. > > 64 bytes from dmz03.ornl.gov (160.91.40.231): icmp_seq=0 ttl=64 > time=0.142 ms > > 64 bytes from dmz03.ornl.gov (160.91.40.231): icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 > time=0.099 ms > > 64 bytes from dmz03.ornl.gov (160.91.40.231): icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 > time=0.104 ms > > 64 bytes from dmz03.ornl.gov (160.91.40.231): icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 > time=0.099 ms > > 64 bytes from dmz03.ornl.gov (160.91.40.231): icmp_seq=4 ttl=64 > time=0.098 ms > > 64 bytes from dmz03.ornl.gov (160.91.40.231): icmp_seq=5 ttl=64 > time=0.099 ms > > 64 bytes from dmz03.ornl.gov (160.91.40.231): icmp_seq=6 ttl=64 > time=0.122 ms > > 64 bytes from dmz03.ornl.gov (160.91.40.231): icmp_seq=7 ttl=64 > time=0.098 ms > > 64 bytes from dmz03.ornl.gov (160.91.40.231): icmp_seq=8 ttl=64 > time=0.099 ms > > 64 bytes from dmz03.ornl.gov (160.91.40.231): icmp_seq=9 ttl=64 > time=0.098 ms > > 64 bytes from dmz03.ornl.gov (160.91.40.231): icmp_seq=10 ttl=64 > time=0.098 ms > > 64 bytes from dmz03.ornl.gov (160.91.40.231): icmp_seq=11 ttl=64 > time=0.098 ms > > 64 bytes from dmz03.ornl.gov (160.91.40.231): icmp_seq=12 ttl=64 > time=0.102 ms > > 64 bytes from dmz03.ornl.gov (160.91.40.231): icmp_seq=13 ttl=64 > time=0.099 ms > > 64 bytes from dmz03.ornl.gov (160.91.40.231): icmp_seq=14 ttl=64 > time=0.099 ms > > 64 bytes from dmz03.ornl.gov (160.91.40.231): icmp_seq=15 ttl=64 > time=0.098 ms > > 64 bytes from dmz03.ornl.gov (160.91.40.231): icmp_seq=16 ttl=64 > time=0.097 ms > > 64 bytes from dmz03.ornl.gov (160.91.40.231): icmp_seq=17 ttl=64 > time=0.098 ms > > 64 bytes from dmz03.ornl.gov (160.91.40.231): icmp_seq=18 ttl=64 > time=0.098 ms > > 64 bytes from dmz03.ornl.gov (160.91.40.231): icmp_seq=19 ttl=64 > time=0.097 ms > > Can someone please suggest what the problem might be? > > Thanks, > > Nikhil > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > 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
> xm migrate --live vcs-dmz02 dmz03.ornl.gov > > Error: can''t connect: No route to host > > Usage: xm migrate <Domain> <Host>Have you edited /etc/xen/xend-config.sxp on both hosts to enable the relocation service? Best, Ian> > > Migrate a domain to another machine. > > > > Options: > > > > -h, --help Print this help. > > -l, --live Use live migration. > > -p=portnum, --port=portnum > > Use specified port for migration. > > -r=MBIT, --resource=MBIT > > Set level of resource usage for migration. > > > > > > > > So, apparently dmz03.ornl.gov cannot be seen from dmz02.ornl.gov.However,> when I run "ping", I GET THE FOLLOWING OUTPUT: > > > > [root@dmz02 fedora]# ping dmz03.ornl.gov > > PING dmz03.ornl.gov (160.91.40.231) 56(84) bytes of data. > > 64 bytes from dmz03.ornl.gov (160.91.40.231): icmp_seq=0 ttl=64time=0.142> ms > > 64 bytes from dmz03.ornl.gov (160.91.40.231): icmp_seq=1 ttl=64time=0.099> ms > > 64 bytes from dmz03.ornl.gov (160.91.40.231): icmp_seq=2 ttl=64time=0.104> ms > > 64 bytes from dmz03.ornl.gov (160.91.40.231): icmp_seq=3 ttl=64time=0.099> ms > > 64 bytes from dmz03.ornl.gov (160.91.40.231): icmp_seq=4 ttl=64time=0.098> ms > > 64 bytes from dmz03.ornl.gov (160.91.40.231): icmp_seq=5 ttl=64time=0.099> ms > > 64 bytes from dmz03.ornl.gov (160.91.40.231): icmp_seq=6 ttl=64time=0.122> ms > > 64 bytes from dmz03.ornl.gov (160.91.40.231): icmp_seq=7 ttl=64time=0.098> ms > > 64 bytes from dmz03.ornl.gov (160.91.40.231): icmp_seq=8 ttl=64time=0.099> ms > > 64 bytes from dmz03.ornl.gov (160.91.40.231): icmp_seq=9 ttl=64time=0.098> ms > > 64 bytes from dmz03.ornl.gov (160.91.40.231): icmp_seq=10 ttl=64time=0.098> ms > > 64 bytes from dmz03.ornl.gov (160.91.40.231): icmp_seq=11 ttl=64time=0.098> ms > > 64 bytes from dmz03.ornl.gov (160.91.40.231): icmp_seq=12 ttl=64time=0.102> ms > > 64 bytes from dmz03.ornl.gov (160.91.40.231): icmp_seq=13 ttl=64time=0.099> ms > > 64 bytes from dmz03.ornl.gov (160.91.40.231): icmp_seq=14 ttl=64time=0.099> ms > > 64 bytes from dmz03.ornl.gov (160.91.40.231): icmp_seq=15 ttl=64time=0.098> ms > > 64 bytes from dmz03.ornl.gov (160.91.40.231): icmp_seq=16 ttl=64time=0.097> ms > > 64 bytes from dmz03.ornl.gov (160.91.40.231): icmp_seq=17 ttl=64time=0.098> ms > > 64 bytes from dmz03.ornl.gov (160.91.40.231): icmp_seq=18 ttl=64time=0.098> ms > > 64 bytes from dmz03.ornl.gov (160.91.40.231): icmp_seq=19 ttl=64time=0.097> ms > > > > Can someone please suggest what the problem might be? > > > > > > Thanks, > > Nikhil > >_______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
Nico Kadel-Garcia
2006-Dec-28 11:32 UTC
Re: [Xen-users] RE: [Xen-devel] Xen-3.0.3 migration problems
Ian Pratt wrote:>> xm migrate --live vcs-dmz02 dmz03.ornl.gov >> >> Error: can''t connect: No route to host >> >> Usage: xm migrate <Domain> <Host> >> > > > Have you edited /etc/xen/xend-config.sxp on both hosts to enable the > relocation service? > > Best, > Ian >Does it need to be on both hosts? And do there need to be image files *already* in place on the target host in /var/lib/xen/images/? And what if you''ve been using LVM managed disk partitions for your working Xen images? Unfortunately, I''m finding the documentation for Xen troublesomely poor. _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
Adam Seering
2006-Dec-28 17:15 UTC
Re: [Xen-users] RE: [Xen-devel] Xen-3.0.3 migration problems
Hi, I''m having this same problem. The relocation service is enabled on both machines; neither has a firewall (sure, I care about security...), and there is no firewall between them. For a live migration, do the dom0 kernels and the source/target PC''s hardware have to be the same? I''m migrating from a stock Debian Etch- based Xen AMD64 system on a Pentium D 8xx (no HVM) to a Fedora Core 6 Xen AMD64 system on a Pentium D 9xx, with HVM support enabled. Adam On Dec 28, 2006, at 6:32 AM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:> Ian Pratt wrote: >>> xm migrate --live vcs-dmz02 dmz03.ornl.gov >>> >>> Error: can''t connect: No route to host >>> >>> Usage: xm migrate <Domain> <Host> >>> >> >> >> Have you edited /etc/xen/xend-config.sxp on both hosts to enable the >> relocation service? >> >> Best, >> Ian >> > Does it need to be on both hosts? And do there need to be image > files *already* in place on the target host in /var/lib/xen/ > images/? And what if you''ve been using LVM managed disk partitions > for your working Xen images? > > Unfortunately, I''m finding the documentation for Xen troublesomely > poor. > > _______________________________________________ > 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
Nico Kadel-Garcia
2006-Dec-28 18:03 UTC
Re: [Xen-users] RE: [Xen-devel] Xen-3.0.3 migration problems
Adam Seering wrote:> Hi, > I''m having this same problem. The relocation service is enabled > on both machines; neither has a firewall (sure, I care about > security...), and there is no firewall between them. > > For a live migration, do the dom0 kernels and the source/target > PC''s hardware have to be the same? I''m migrating from a stock Debian > Etch-based Xen AMD64 system on a Pentium D 8xx (no HVM) to a Fedora > Core 6 Xen AMD64 system on a Pentium D 9xx, with HVM support enabled. > > AdamI''ve duplicated my relocation domain to both Xen Dom0 servers, and am waiting to reboot one of them to make sure it gets all the options set correctly. (I had to schedule a shutdown anyway.) Unfortunately, it seems to fail silently. "xm list" reports a "migrating-DOMAIN" domain on the source host, and a "DOMAIN" domain on the other target host, but the transfer eventually fails silently and leaves the DOMAIN in question dead on the first host, which is really, really bad practice. I''m working on an ASUS RS120-E3 system, without VT, all 32-bit systems. I''m also tyring to play with a RHEL 4.92 beta system, but it''s been a source of adventures.> > On Dec 28, 2006, at 6:32 AM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: > >> Ian Pratt wrote: >>>> xm migrate --live vcs-dmz02 dmz03.ornl.gov >>>> >>>> Error: can''t connect: No route to host >>>> >>>> Usage: xm migrate <Domain> <Host> >>>> >>> >>> >>> Have you edited /etc/xen/xend-config.sxp on both hosts to enable the >>> relocation service? >>> >>> Best, >>> Ian >>> >> Does it need to be on both hosts? And do there need to be image files >> *already* in place on the target host in /var/lib/xen/images/? And >> what if you''ve been using LVM managed disk partitions for your >> working Xen images? >> >> Unfortunately, I''m finding the documentation for Xen troublesomely poor._______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
Keir Fraser
2006-Dec-29 10:05 UTC
Re: [Xen-users] RE: [Xen-devel] Xen-3.0.3 migration problems
On 28/12/06 5:15 pm, "Adam Seering" <aseering@gmail.com> wrote:> I''m having this same problem. The relocation service is enabled on > both machines; neither has a firewall (sure, I care about > security...), and there is no firewall between them. > > For a live migration, do the dom0 kernels and the source/target PC''s > hardware have to be the same? I''m migrating from a stock Debian Etch- > based Xen AMD64 system on a Pentium D 8xx (no HVM) to a Fedora Core 6 > Xen AMD64 system on a Pentium D 9xx, with HVM support enabled.Migrating to a newer (more capable) processor should work. It''s when features silently disappear that guests can get upset. The dom0 kernel does not matter but the version of the Xen toolstack might -- did you install Xen and tools yourself on both boxes from a consistent version? /var/log/xen/xend.log and /var/log/xen/xend-debug.log probably have interesting info if things are going wrong (the logs may be big: if so it''s the tail that''s interesting). -- Keir _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
Adam Seering
2006-Dec-29 16:34 UTC
Re: [Xen-users] RE: [Xen-devel] Xen-3.0.3 migration problems
On Dec 29, 2006, at 5:05 AM, Keir Fraser wrote:> On 28/12/06 5:15 pm, "Adam Seering" <aseering@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I''m having this same problem. The relocation service is enabled on >> both machines; neither has a firewall (sure, I care about >> security...), and there is no firewall between them. >> >> For a live migration, do the dom0 kernels and the source/target PC''s >> hardware have to be the same? I''m migrating from a stock Debian >> Etch- >> based Xen AMD64 system on a Pentium D 8xx (no HVM) to a Fedora Core 6 >> Xen AMD64 system on a Pentium D 9xx, with HVM support enabled. > > Migrating to a newer (more capable) processor should work. It''s when > features silently disappear that guests can get upset. The dom0 > kernel does > not matter but the version of the Xen toolstack might -- did you > install Xen > and tools yourself on both boxes from a consistent version?I did not, actually; I''m using the stock versions from the FC6 / Debian Etch repo''s. I could try that. One of these machines just lost a hard disk; I''m not eager to try anything interesting until I can replace it, so I''ll play around with this when the new drive comes in. A recent e-mail mentioned that migration machines have to be on the same L2 subnet (I missed that line in the Xen manual). These machines aren''t; they''re in different buildings, with IP routing between them (though the connection speed and latency are very good). I''ll try putting the machines on the same subnet.> /var/log/xen/xend.log and /var/log/xen/xend-debug.log probably have > interesting info if things are going wrong (the logs may be big: if > so it''s > the tail that''s interesting).OK; I''ll take a look at those. Thanks, Adam _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
Bhatia, Nikhil
2006-Dec-29 16:46 UTC
RE: [Xen-users] RE: [Xen-devel] Xen-3.0.3 migration problems
Hello All, Thanks a lot for your quick and extremely useful responses. Although, I have not been able to solve the problem but I would like o mention some things about my configuration setup for the guest domains and the host domain. As mentioned earlier, I have two nodes running (dmz02 and dmz03). DMZ02 is using xen-3.0.3 version which I grabbed from the Xensource website a couple of days back. The guest domain configuration file has been setup so as to use DHCP protocol for assigning the IP addresses to the guest domains. Now one of the problems that I am facing is that the Xen guest domains are not being able to see the DHCP server on creation. Therefore, the domains are created in a "blocked" state. That might explain why things are not working for me. DMZ03 is using xen-3.0.3-testing.hg source obtained 3-4 weeks back. Can that be a potential problem too? Now, DMZ-03 is been used by one of my other colleagues, so it would take some handshaking for me to get the versions compatible. Also, the guest domains on this node are created in the "blocked" state. So, I understand that the guest domains should be in a "running" state for migration to take place. Is that a safe statement to say? Anyways, I think my problem is the "blocked" state and the unreachable DHCP server. I have checked that my /etc/xen/xend.config has been configured properly on both sides. Thanks for all your suggestions. Wish you all a Happy new Year. Thanks, Nikhil -----Original Message----- From: Adam Seering [mailto:aseering@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 11:34 AM To: Keir Fraser Cc: Ian Pratt; xen-devel@lists.xensource.com; xen-users@lists.xensource.com; Bhatia, Nikhil; Nico Kadel-Garcia Subject: Re: [Xen-users] RE: [Xen-devel] Xen-3.0.3 migration problems On Dec 29, 2006, at 5:05 AM, Keir Fraser wrote:> On 28/12/06 5:15 pm, "Adam Seering" <aseering@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I''m having this same problem. The relocation service is enabled on >> both machines; neither has a firewall (sure, I care about >> security...), and there is no firewall between them. >> >> For a live migration, do the dom0 kernels and the source/target PC''s >> hardware have to be the same? I''m migrating from a stock Debian >> Etch- >> based Xen AMD64 system on a Pentium D 8xx (no HVM) to a Fedora Core 6 >> Xen AMD64 system on a Pentium D 9xx, with HVM support enabled. > > Migrating to a newer (more capable) processor should work. It''s when > features silently disappear that guests can get upset. The dom0 > kernel does > not matter but the version of the Xen toolstack might -- did you > install Xen > and tools yourself on both boxes from a consistent version?I did not, actually; I''m using the stock versions from the FC6 / Debian Etch repo''s. I could try that. One of these machines just lost a hard disk; I''m not eager to try anything interesting until I can replace it, so I''ll play around with this when the new drive comes in. A recent e-mail mentioned that migration machines have to be on the same L2 subnet (I missed that line in the Xen manual). These machines aren''t; they''re in different buildings, with IP routing between them (though the connection speed and latency are very good). I''ll try putting the machines on the same subnet.> /var/log/xen/xend.log and /var/log/xen/xend-debug.log probably have > interesting info if things are going wrong (the logs may be big: if > so it''s > the tail that''s interesting).OK; I''ll take a look at those. Thanks, Adam _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
Keir Fraser
2006-Dec-29 18:34 UTC
Re: [Xen-users] RE: [Xen-devel] Xen-3.0.3 migration problems
On 29/12/06 4:34 pm, "Adam Seering" <aseering@gmail.com> wrote:> A recent e-mail mentioned that migration machines have to be on the > same L2 subnet (I missed that line in the Xen manual). These > machines aren''t; they''re in different buildings, with IP routing > between them (though the connection speed and latency are very > good). I''ll try putting the machines on the same subnet.The guest''s IP address will not change across the migration, so the original IP address needs to be routable to the target host. -- Keir _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
Javier Guerra
2006-Dec-29 18:56 UTC
Re: [Xen-users] RE: [Xen-devel] Xen-3.0.3 migration problems
On Friday 29 December 2006 11:34 am, Adam Seering wrote:> A recent e-mail mentioned that migration machines have to be on the > same L2 subnet (I missed that line in the Xen manual). These > machines aren''t; they''re in different buildings, with IP routing > between them (though the connection speed and latency are very > good). I''ll try putting the machines on the same subnet.also remember that both machines have to have access to _the_same_ storage. if you''re using file-backed storage, that means they must be on a shared filesystem (NFS or Samba). if you''re using block devices (partitions, LUNs, LVM volumes, etc) you must have some sort of shared block device (GNBD, AoE, FC, iSCSI, etc). -- Javier _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
Ulrich Windl
2007-Jan-08 14:47 UTC
Re: [Xen-users] RE: [Xen-devel] Xen-3.0.3 migration problems
On 29 Dec 2006 at 18:34, Keir Fraser wrote:> On 29/12/06 4:34 pm, "Adam Seering" <aseering@gmail.com> wrote: > > > A recent e-mail mentioned that migration machines have to be on the > > same L2 subnet (I missed that line in the Xen manual). These > > machines aren''t; they''re in different buildings, with IP routing > > between them (though the connection speed and latency are very > > good). I''ll try putting the machines on the same subnet. > > The guest''s IP address will not change across the migration, so the original > IP address needs to be routable to the target host.??? Migration is communication between Dom0s, right? Can''t Dom0 ensure that DomU IPs are routable? Maybe a warning would be preferrable to an error (do-nothing). Regards, Ulrich _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users