On 21/03/13 02:47, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Wed, 2013-03-20 at 23:32 +0100, Daniel Pocock wrote:
Should the script be using the ovs-vsctl command instead of brctl?
As a general rule one should be using the ovs tools directly wherever
possible and not the brctl compat layer.
Or
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 17/03/13 18:49, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Sun, 2013-03-17 at 18:44 +0100, Daniel Pocock wrote:
On 17/03/13 18:38, Ian Campbell wrote:
I'm afraid I don't know about the issue you are seeing but I
can comment on one part:
On Sun, 2013-03-17
On Wed, 2013-03-20 at 23:32 +0100, Daniel Pocock wrote:
Should the script be using the ovs-vsctl command instead of brctl?
As a general rule one should be using the ovs tools directly wherever
possible and not the brctl compat layer.
Or
have I misconfigured something and the wrong script
Hi,
I've been testing the Debian packages ahead of the Debian 7 release
(which is very imminent)
I believe this is a serious bug[1] in the package, as it appears that
HVM networking is broken, or at the very least, requires some
undocumented configuration step
Specifically:
- I can start the
I'm afraid I don't know about the issue you are seeing but I can comment
on one part:
On Sun, 2013-03-17 at 15:02 +0100, Daniel Pocock wrote:
while the output from dmesg suggests that the interface vif10.0 was
created. It appears there is confusion between the vifX.Y and tapX.Y
naming
On Sun, 2013-03-17 at 15:02 +0100, Daniel Pocock wrote:
xcp-fe: qemu-dm-10[9169]: can't add tap10.0 to bridge xapi1: Operation
not supported
A google search for linux add tap to bridge operation not supported
shows lots of people having this sort issue (often in the absence of
Xen) although
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 17/03/13 18:38, Ian Campbell wrote:
I'm afraid I don't know about the issue you are seeing but I can
comment on one part:
On Sun, 2013-03-17 at 15:02 +0100, Daniel Pocock wrote:
while the output from dmesg suggests that the interface
On Sun, 2013-03-17 at 18:44 +0100, Daniel Pocock wrote:
On 17/03/13 18:38, Ian Campbell wrote:
I'm afraid I don't know about the issue you are seeing but I can
comment on one part:
On Sun, 2013-03-17 at 15:02 +0100, Daniel Pocock wrote:
while the output from dmesg suggests that the
8 matches
Mail list logo
