On 17 Dec Joshua D. Drake wrote: > On Wed, 2008-12-17 at 21:02 +0100, dick hoogendijk wrote: > > The new VBox-2.1 is very nice. Reading some messages I found out > > that NAT is no longer required. I can attach my network interface to > > the Host interface in stead of NATting it. Tried it and it worked > > flawlessly. My XP virtual machine got a 192.168.x.x number ;-) > > Really? I am having a heck of a time getting host networking to work > correctly.
Yes, really. The machine got a 192.168.11.xx local IP and could be reached from every other machine on my local net. That was also true the other way around (ftp, ssh, etc..) > > Question: what are the (dis)advantages of using NAT vv Host > > interface? Host is solaris nevada (sxce-104) > In theory host interface networking should allow the guest OS to > appear on the network as if it were a real machine. I knew that one ;-) No sub-sub-net.. My question is more related to performance issues using NAT vs binding to the host interface. > For Windows it probably doesn't matter as much but if your guest is > solaris or linux it is very useful. I have some real windows machines in my local network too. So, I guess binding to the host interface is the best option. -- Dick Hoogendijk -- PGP/GnuPG key: 01D2433D +http://nagual.nl/ | SunOS 10u6 10/08 ZFS+ _______________________________________________ vbox-users mailing list [email protected] http://vbox.innotek.de/mailman/listinfo/vbox-users
