On 03/24/2013 08:29 AM, Frank Murphy wrote: > Installed my first guest F16 Xfce 32bit (EOL, test) > > No virt-preview installed standard repos only. > > Virt-Manager in use. > > The default "virt-network is there" > have tried it both NAT and routed, > deleted it, re-installed no joy. > > Both eth0, eth1 show up in "Network Interfaces" tab > with their DHCP ipv4 info (ipv6 disabled on host by choice) > > ~]# ifconfig > eth0: flags=4163<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,MULTICAST> mtu 1500 > inet 192.168.0.6 netmask 255.255.255.0 broadcast > 192.168.0.255 ether 90:2b:34:98:cb:28 txqueuelen 1000 (Ethernet) > RX packets 60 bytes 9351 (9.1 KiB) > RX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 frame 0 > TX packets 51 bytes 5856 (5.7 KiB) > TX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 carrier 0 collisions 0 > > eth1: flags=4163<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,MULTICAST> mtu 1500 > inet 192.168.0.193 netmask 255.255.255.0 broadcast > 192.168.0.255 ether a0:f3:c1:00:56:bb txqueuelen 1000 (Ethernet) > RX packets 138 bytes 75894 (74.1 KiB) > RX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 frame 0 > TX packets 165 bytes 15167 (14.8 KiB) > TX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 carrier 0 collisions 0 > > > virbr0: flags=4099<UP,BROADCAST,MULTICAST> mtu 1500 > inet 192.168.1.1 netmask 255.255.255.0 broadcast > 192.168.1.255 ether 52:54:00:c6:4c:07 txqueuelen 0 (Ethernet) > RX packets 0 bytes 0 (0.0 B) > RX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 frame 0 > TX packets 4 bytes 854 (854.0 B) > TX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 carrier 0 collisions 0 > > > > cat default.xml <snipped> > <network> > <name>default</name> > <uuid>e5216e09-7d6d-7999-0327-67ca7ecc5c60</uuid> > <forward dev='eth1' mode='route'> > <interface dev='eth1'/> > </forward>
1) setting forward dev='eth1' very likely isn't doing what you think it's doing. Setting the forward dev does not change any routing decisions for the packets, it merely causes packets that would have been forwarded out any other interface to instead be rejected/dropped. 2) Add that to the fact that your eth0 and eth1 both have IP addresses on the same subnet, and you're setup for almost certain failure (since it's unclear which interface would be used for any given packet) 3) If your network has forward mode='route', then the machines on the network beyond the host must have a route for 192.168.1.0/24 that points back at your virt host (192.168.0.6 or 192.168.0.193, pick one). My recommendation: 1) since eth1 appears to be connected to the same subnet as eth0, just disable it (if you *really* need the extra bandwidth, bond the two interfaces together). 2) remove the "dev='eth1'" and "<interface dev='eth1'/>" from your network definition. 3) unless a) you need to support incoming connections to your guests from the outside *and* b) the rest of the network has a route for 192.168.1.0/24 pointing back at the host, change the forward mode of the network from 'route' to 'nat'. > <bridge name='virbr0' stp='on' delay='0' /> > <mac address='52:54:00:C6:4C:07'/> > <ip address='192.168.1.1' netmask='255.255.255.0'> > <dhcp> > <range start='192.168.1.10' end='192.168.1.25' /> > </dhcp> > </ip> > </network> > > > Booting F16-DVD in rescue mode on guest still no joy. > _______________________________________________ virt mailing list [email protected] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/virt
