Some more info, on SSVM I can see the following routes, there is route there, so why SSVM(eth2: 192.168.0.134) could not contact Management Server(192.168.0.100)? Can someone help here? Thanks root@s-1-VM:~# ip route default via 192.168.0.100 dev eth2 169.254.0.0/16 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src 169.254.1.47 172.20.10.0/24 via 192.168.0.100 dev eth1 172.20.10.30 via 192.168.0.100 dev eth1 192.168.0.0/24 dev eth1 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.0.22 192.168.0.0/24 dev eth2 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.0.134 192.168.0.0/24 dev eth3 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.0.25
2014-11-10 15:12 GMT-06:00 Dan Dong <dongda...@gmail.com>: > Hi, All, > When debugging why my ISOs could not be registered, I found when I > logged into SSVM, I could not even ping the Management Server, although > they are both in the 192.168.0.0/24 network, so of course could not ping > outside world. Here are my simple network settings of my cloud(1Management > Server + 1 KVM hypervisor): > > 1. Management server have 2 NICs: > em2 pointing outside with 10.0.0.100/24 > em1 pointing inside with 192.168.0.100/24 (also serves as DNS > and Gateway of the cloud) > 2. One KVM hypervisor which has 1 NIC: em1 with 192.168.0.101/24 > 3. VMs created on KVM hypervisor will sit on the same network of > 192.168.0.0/24 > > The weird thing is that I can access the internet from the KVM hypervisor > as NAT is enabled on the Management Server, but for the SSVM(IP of eth2: > 192.168.0.89) running on it, it could not even see the Management > Server(192.168.0.100 on em1). Should one manually re-configure routing > tables on the SSVM to solve this problem or it is caused by the initial > network design of the cloud? Thanks! > > Cheers, > Dan > >
