I got: # ovs-dpctl dump-flows ovs skb_priority(0x6),in_port(2),eth(src=a2:05:92:71:79:69,dst=0a:00:27:00:00:00),eth_type(0x0800),ipv4(src=192.168.56.100,dst=192.168.56.1,proto=6,tos=0x10,ttl=64,frag=no),tcp(src=22,dst=56241), packets:117, bytes:18730, used:0.264s, flags:P., actions:1 in_port(1),eth(src=0a:00:27:00:00:00,dst=a2:05:92:71:79:69),eth_type(0x0800),ipv4(src=192.168.56.1,dst=192.168.56.100,proto=6,tos=0,ttl=64,frag=no),tcp(src=56241,dst=22), packets:168, bytes:13488, used:0.264s, flags:P., actions:2
And the settings are: virtualbox host(my laptop,ip 192.168.56.1) --- eth0(no ip) ---- ovs ---- veth0(no ip) --- veth1(ip 192.168.56.100) And I could ping from host to guest and also ssh to this interface. I think what I should do next is to install some flow entries to forward those ARP/ICMPv6/TCP packets to veth1 2013/7/30 Jesse Gross <[email protected]> > What do you see if you run ovs-dpctl dump-flows while this is running? > > On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 7:40 AM, Can Zhang <[email protected]> wrote: > > I think I've replied but actually it's in the draft box. Sorry for the > > delay. > > > > I captured packets on both interface using wireshark and as I described > in > > the first mail, I can see ARP request at eth0 but not tap0. > > > > And now I'm considering using a veth pair, say veth0 and veth1. Attach > veth0 > > to an ovs and configure an IP address on veth1. As: > > > > peer packets --- eth0 ---- ovs ---- veth0 --- veth1(with IP address) > > > > The flows installed are similar as before. So the peer could establish > TCP > > connections with my machine via veth1's IP address. What do you think of > it? > > > > > > 2013/7/25 Jesse Gross <[email protected]> > >> > >> And you ran tcpdump on both ports and you see packets on one but not the > >> other? > >> > >> On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 5:54 AM, Can Zhang <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > NXST_FLOW reply (xid=0x4): > >> > cookie=0x0, duration=2938.314s, table=0, n_packets=0, n_bytes=0, > >> > idle_age=2938, in_port=1 actions=output:2 > >> > cookie=0x0, duration=2943.819s, table=0, n_packets=130, > n_bytes=20082, > >> > idle_age=11, in_port=2 actions=output:1 > >> > > >> > > >> > Just forward all flow from 1 to 2 and 2 to 1. > >> > > >> > > >> > 2013/7/24 Jesse Gross <[email protected]> > >> >> > >> >> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 7:11 AM, Can Zhang <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> > Hello, > >> >> > > >> >> > Firstly I'll describe a simple scenario I tried: > >> >> > > >> >> > peer packets --- eth0 ---- ovs ---- tap0 > >> >> > > >> >> > I configured tap0 with IP 192.168.57.100, two flows to forward > >> >> > packets > >> >> > from eth0 and tap0 to the other side, and pinged from outside to > the > >> >> > IP. I > >> >> > did capture ARP request on eth0 using wireshark, but could not see > >> >> > any > >> >> > packets on tap0. It seems that after attach a port to ovs, the IP > >> >> > address is > >> >> > no longer effective. > >> >> > > >> >> > My goal is to use a machine installed with ovs as a openflow switch > >> >> > but > >> >> > it can also handle some packets(say, a normal socket server can > still > >> >> > work). > >> >> > So I'm thinking of extract some packets to tap0 and make the server > >> >> > listen > >> >> > on it. But the experiments I did failed as above. I have no idea > what > >> >> > to try > >> >> > next so I come to see if somebody could give me some suggestions. > >> >> > >> >> What do the flows that you installed look like? At the Open vSwitch > >> >> level, IP addresses on the interfaces do not matter. > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > -- > >> > Best regards, > >> > Can Zhang > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Best regards, > > Can Zhang > -- Best regards, Can Zhang
_______________________________________________ discuss mailing list [email protected] http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
