ew Hartmann [mailto:mhartm...@tls.net]
> Sent: Monday, June 18, 2012 5:45 AM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Advice on SSVM network interfaces
>
> On 6/15/2012 2:59 PM, Anthony Xu wrote:
> > Hi Salvatore,
> >
> > > From your descrip
On 6/15/2012 2:59 PM, Anthony Xu wrote:
Hi Salvatore,
> From your description, the ARP response is sent out through eth1, some
switches may drop this kind of package, it expects to receive ARP response from
the same port ARP request sent out.
I think it is a bug, in this case, CloudStack shou
8.3.110 tell 192.168.0.1, length 46
> -Original Message-
> From: Anthony Xu [mailto:xuefei...@citrix.com]
> Sent: 15 June 2012 20:58
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Advice on SSVM network interfaces
>
> Salvatore,
>
> I guess the attachment is di
9 PM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Advice on SSVM network interfaces
>
> Anthony,
>
> At first I too was suspecting the ARP reply was sent on eth1 and then
> discarded by the gateway because the SRC MAC address of the frame did
> not match the
u if I report an issue on bugs.cloudstack.org and assign it to
you?
Regards,
Salvatore
> -Original Message-
> From: Anthony Xu [mailto:xuefei...@citrix.com]
> Sent: 15 June 2012 19:59
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Advice on SSVM network interfaces
>
> Hi
Hi Salvatore,
>From your description, the ARP response is sent out through eth1, some
>switches may drop this kind of package, it expects to receive ARP response
>from the same port ARP request sent out.
I think it is a bug, in this case, CloudStack should not configure eth2 and
eth3 for SSVM,
