Michael Thayer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hello Jari,
>
> Just a thought, as networking is not my strong point... shouldn't the
> guest's NIC be on a different subnet, such as 192.168.2.1 in order for
> packages for 192.168.1.x to be forwarded to the host?
When running in bridged mode, this is different. The Guest-VM is seen
as "a new computer / new IP" and is part of existing network topology.
That's why the bridge is in theory the simplest way to get Guest-Host
connected.
Guest { VM eth1 } 192.168.1.7
|
Host ................................
. { tap0 } { ra0 } . <= VM:Guest talks through tap0/tun
. | | .
. | | .
. +--+-----------+-------+ .
. | Bridge | . 192.168.1.3
. +----------------------+ .
................................
|
Host ------+------ host etc.
GW 192.168.1.1
|
I N T E R N E T
The ra0 here is wireless physhical connection from real Host to the
outside world. It could as well be an eth0 cable.
The problem here is that the VM doens't seem to recognize or send
packets to tap0 at all and is thus not talking to the Host.
Jari
_______________________________________________
vbox-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://vbox.innotek.de/mailman/listinfo/vbox-users
