- Message d'origine
De : Asheesh Laroia [EMAIL PROTECTED]
À : Asheesh Laroia on [qemu-devel] qemu-devel@nongnu.org
Envoyé le : Mardi, 5 Février 2008, 23h24mn 42s
Objet : Re: [Qemu-devel] Making qemu use 10.0.3.x not 10.0.2.x
On Tue, 5 Feb 2008, Jernej Simončič wrote:
On Tuesday
Warner Losh writes (Re: [Qemu-devel] Making qemu use 10.0.3.x not 10.0.2.x):
I think that the suggestion is that qemu picks, one time, a new
default. This new default would be selected at random, and would be
the same on all new versions of qemu.
Yes.
I don't think that the suggestion
On 06/02/2008, Ian Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
andrzej zaborowski writes (Re: [Qemu-devel] Making qemu use 10.0.3.x not
10.0.2.x):
This rfc talks about organisations and networks that are real, not
about the network inside qemu which doesn't have connectivity with
another qemu
Hi,
Using a (once) randomly-chosen default greatly reduces the odds of
that happening. Many many people foolishly choose 10.0.{0,1,2,3}.x.
Many fewer choose (say) 172.30.206.x. So the fixed qemu default
should be 172.30.206.x, or some other range also chosen at random.
A few years back
andrzej zaborowski writes (Re: [Qemu-devel] Making qemu use 10.0.3.x not
10.0.2.x):
Right, but this happens so rarely (and there are no obvious symptoms
when it happens)
The symptoms are generally that the host loses its network connection
to those parts of the outside world, or that it can't
Andreas Schwab, le Tue 05 Feb 2008 11:32:30 +0100, a écrit :
Samuel Thibault [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Mmm, actually, shouldn't qemu use a more private network like a
RFC1918 172.16.0.0/12 network?
In which way is 172.16.0.0/12 more private than 10.0.0.0/8?
Precisely thanks to the
Samuel Thibault [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Mmm, actually, shouldn't qemu use a more private network like a
RFC1918 172.16.0.0/12 network?
In which way is 172.16.0.0/12 more private than 10.0.0.0/8?
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
SuSE Linux Products GmbH,
Andreas Schwab writes (Re: [Qemu-devel] Making qemu use 10.0.3.x not
10.0.2.x):
Samuel Thibault [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Mmm, actually, shouldn't qemu use a more private network like a
RFC1918 172.16.0.0/12 network?
In which way is 172.16.0.0/12 more private than 10.0.0.0/8?
It isn't
Am 05.02.2008 um 12:30 schrieb Ian Jackson:
I don't believe that 10.0.2.0/24 was chosen randomly :-). It would be
better for qemu's default range to be a randomly chosen one.
Please don't randomly choose a default subnet; knowing that QEMU uses
10.0.2.x allows to adapt to this. If however
From: Andreas Färber [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Making qemu use 10.0.3.x not 10.0.2.x
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 13:58:28 +0100
Am 05.02.2008 um 12:30 schrieb Ian Jackson:
I don't believe that 10.0.2.0/24 was chosen randomly :-). It would be
better for qemu's default range
Warner Losh wrote:
From: Andreas Färber [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Making qemu use 10.0.3.x not 10.0.2.x
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 13:58:28 +0100
Am 05.02.2008 um 12:30 schrieb Ian Jackson:
I don't believe that 10.0.2.0/24 was chosen randomly :-). It would be
better for qemu's
Warner Losh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Andreas Färber [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Making qemu use 10.0.3.x not 10.0.2.x
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 13:58:28 +0100
Am 05.02.2008 um 12:30 schrieb Ian Jackson:
I don't believe that 10.0.2.0/24 was chosen randomly
On Tue, 5 Feb 2008, Ben Taylor wrote:
It seems to me that there is a corner case where the local host has a
10.0.2.x or 10.0.x.x address which would cause a qemu guest problems
that has a 10.0.2.15 address (for -net user only).
That's right - that's the issue that I faced.
I think the
On 05/02/2008, Ian Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andreas Schwab writes (Re: [Qemu-devel] Making qemu use 10.0.3.x not
10.0.2.x):
Samuel Thibault [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Mmm, actually, shouldn't qemu use a more private network like a
RFC1918 172.16.0.0/12 network?
In which way
I think in VBox the Slirp IP address can be changed. I didn't take
that part to my patch:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2007-10/msg00470.html
but it should be easy to add.
Currently all NICs share the same subnet.
Asheesh Laroia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 5 Feb 2008, Ben Taylor wrote:
It seems to me that there is a corner case where the local host has a
10.0.2.x or 10.0.x.x address which would cause a qemu guest problems
that has a 10.0.2.15 address (for -net user only).
That's
but make
it configurable on the command line. That way, there are no surprises
ever. The rare people like me with an issue can just pass a command-line
parameter in.
The point I was trying to make is that qemu could easily arbitrate the
guest network based on how the host is
On Tue, 5 Feb 2008, Paul Brook wrote:
but make it configurable on the command line. That way, there are no
surprises ever. The rare people like me with an issue can just pass a
command-line parameter in.
The point I was trying to make is that qemu could easily arbitrate the
guest network
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ian Jackson wrote:
So while this setup is being made configurable, I think it would
probably be best for qemu's range to be changed to a random range.
The customizable subnet is obviously the preferred choice, but if I had to
choose a subnet I'd
On Tue, 5 Feb 2008, Jernej Simončič wrote:
On Tuesday, February 5, 2008, 22:34:04, Asheesh Laroia wrote:
I agree with this - guesswork and invisible options can be confusing.
That's why I suggest what I think is the simplest solution: Just let
this be overridable on the command line.
Isn't
Paul Brook wrote:
but make
it configurable on the command line. That way, there are no surprises
ever. The rare people like me with an issue can just pass a command-line
parameter in.
The point I was trying to make is that qemu could easily arbitrate the
guest network based on
On Wednesday 06 February 2008, Jamie Lokier wrote:
Paul Brook wrote:
but make
it configurable on the command line. That way, there are no
surprises ever. The rare people like me with an issue can just pass
a command-line parameter in.
The point I was trying to make is that
Mmm, actually, shouldn't qemu use a more private network like a
RFC1918 172.16.0.0/12 network?
(see http://www.ucam.org/cam-grin/)
Samuel
You can always do what I do --- run openvpn between my QEMU sessions and set
up private networks that way ;)
On Feb 4, 2008 4:24 PM, Asheesh Laroia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm running qemu (really, KVM) in a LAN that uses 10.0.2.x as the IP
address block for workstations. So naturally when I
Hi,
On Mon, 4 Feb 2008, Asheesh Laroia wrote:
Booting that resulted in a virtual machine that, as I had hoped, used
10.0.3.15 and could therefore successfully talk to my 10.0.2.x IPs on
the LAN. I've attached a 'cvs diff' against HEAD that results from the
above command.
And the next guy
25 matches
Mail list logo
