On 3/5/15 11:08 AM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
It looks like there's an off-by-four (!) error in the Ethernet packet,
with the Ethernet
addresses being shifted four bytes.  It seems unlikely that this would
be an Open
vSwitch bug, since Open vSwitch works correctly with VLANs on tons of drivers
and environments.  I don't know whether it would be a virtualbox problem or a
problem with the driver on the host or guest kernel side, or even
somewhere else.
This probably has nothing to do with Open vSwitch. You may also want to check your versions of tcpdump and libpcap. Some older versions don't report vlan tags properly on certain kernel versions and certain Ethernet IF's. Googling will show quite a bit of discussion about this.

On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 12:53 AM, Ming-Ching Tiew <[email protected]> wrote:
I got additional info now.

It's seems there is a corruption of data when packets are read on the guest
1 when reading the vlan-tagged data. I did a tcpdump on guest 1 when guest2
tries to ping to guest 1, one can see that mac address of guest2 ( the
initiator of arp request ) is wrong, and it also goes to the wrong
destination mac address :-

08:19:28.469448 2f:33:81:00:00:64 > ff:ff:08:00:27:cc, ethertype ARP
(0x0806), length 60: Request who-has 192.168.100.2 tell 192.168.100.3,
length 46
08:19:29.464121 2f:33:81:00:00:64 > ff:ff:08:00:27:cc, ethertype ARP
(0x0806), length 60: Request who-has 192.168.100.2 tell 192.168.100.3,
length 46
08:19:30.463983 2f:33:81:00:00:64 > ff:ff:08:00:27:cc, ethertype ARP
(0x0806), length 60: Request who-has 192.168.100.2 tell 192.168.100.3,
length 46
08:19:31.470218 2f:33:81:00:00:64 > ff:ff:08:00:27:cc, ethertype ARP
(0x0806), length 60: Request who-has 192.168.100.2 tell 192.168.100.3,
length 46
08:19:32.463634 2f:33:81:00:00:64 > ff:ff:08:00:27:cc, ethertype ARP
(0x0806), length 60: Request who-has 192.168.100.2 tell 192.168.100.3,
length 46
08:19:33.463215 2f:33:81:00:00:64 > ff:ff:08:00:27:cc, ethertype ARP
(0x0806), length 60: Request who-has 192.168.100.2 tell 192.168.100.3,
length 46

The arp requestor's mac address ( guest 2 ) which is supposed to be
(08:00:27:cc:3f:33 ) has become 2f:33:81:00:00:64, and the arp requests have
sent to ff:ff:08:00:27:cc which is supposed to be ( ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff ).

Furthermore it's supposed to be a ethertype 8021q traffic, but the tcpdump
is not seeing it as such !

Total corruption !!! No wonder cannot ping.

Earlier I said the the host was able to ping to guest1 via the VLAN 100 but
that's about all that it can do. Only ping is successful, other
communications failed. When I try to do a ssh session over it from guest 1
to the host, it could not be established. Communication over the untagged
data is still successful.

Looks like I am stepping into a can of worms with regards to the support of
VLAN tagged traffic with the use of open vswitch with virtualbox ! ;)





________________________________
From: Ben Pfaff <[email protected]>
To: Ming-Ching Tiew <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, March 5, 2015 2:03 PM
Subject: Re: [ovs-discuss] Problem using virtualbox with open vswitch with
VLAN

On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 01:23:58AM +0000, Ming-Ching Tiew wrote:
Thanks for the info !
After reading the doc, I believe my settings should be like this :-
port vnet0: vlan_mode=trunk, and trunk setting should be either empty or a
list including vlan id's including 0 and 100 ( I want both the eth0 and
eth0.100 to work ).
port br0: same as port vnet0.
port vlan10: vlan_mode should be access, and tag is 100. Trunk should not
be set.
So it is still not working in virtualbox but it's working in qemu.
Do you think it's a bug with virtualbox ?
I don't know.  I don't feel confident that we're communicating well, so
I hesitate to blame some other program.




Btw, I could not find a command which list the configured
vlan_mode. 'ovs-vsctl show' does not list the vlan_mode.

"ovs-vsctl list port" will do it.







--
Thomas F. Herbert

_______________________________________________
discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Reply via email to