Hi Klaus, On 24/01/2013 17:34, Klaus Espenlaub wrote: > It's a quite common setup, and like all similar setups it is bending > the definition of "host only" somewhat. It relies on the advanced > networking capabilities of the host OS, in this case Linux. That's right, I am happy to hear it is not against your intentions. > I guess you needed to tweak the guest VM configs a little as the DHCP > server for host only will not give out a router configuration and thus > the VMs will have no default route. In case anyone is interested for use cases : I have actually totally disabled the Virtualbox DHCP servers and use a combinaison of static IP for 2 of my ranges (one being the servers, the other being DEV environment) and I have put a DHCP IP helper on the 3rd NIC towards one of my DHCP/DNS/DC servers. Again, everything works beautifully. > Adding more VMs will only have an effect on the setup if the traffic > increases. Eventually you might hit bandwidth limits (which are > reasonably high, depending on your hardware), especially if you have a > lot of traffic going through the router. Good to hear it is not different then regular hardware! > Having a routing VM achieves the best isolation since the networks are > further away from the host, but if you're happy with your setup I see no > immediate reason to make changes. With your setup you can wreck both the > host and certain aspects of the VM connectivity by making changes to the > iptables config. With a separate router VM it is clearly separated. Thank you, I will keep using this setup for now then. I could potentially wrack a few things, that is correct, but giving the current size of the infra, I won't add more work to it, but I will keep your recommendation in mind!
Again, thank you for your clear & precise answers, as well as the recommendations. Max _______________________________________________ vbox-dev mailing list [email protected] https://www.virtualbox.org/mailman/listinfo/vbox-dev
