| |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
xen-devel
Re: [Xen-devel] Bridged Networking in Dom 0 and Virtual NIC inWindows XP
Hi All,
My conclusions earlier in the day were totally erroneous.
The problem is with the FORWARD chain in the filter table.
After Win XP Home 32-bit HVM Guest has started, I flushed the forward
chain in the filter table with the command
# iptables -t filter -F FORWARD
This allows my WinXP Home HVM guest to obtain IP address successfully
from the wireless router using DHCP.
Success!!!
This is still a temporary fix. I still have to write the correct rules
for the FORWARD chain in the filter table.
The following rules which are recommended by the XenNetworking Wiki did
not work for me:
iptables -A FORWARD -m physdev --physdev-in eth0 --physdev-out '!' eth0 -j
ACCEPT
iptables -A FORWARD -m physdev --physdev-out eth0 --physdev-in '!' eth0 -j
ACCEPT
Neither did the rules automatically added by xend after winxp hvm has started
worked for me.
Anyone knows the correct iptables rules to add to the forward chain in the
filter table?
--
Mr. Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming) Dip(Mechatronics Engineering)
BEng(Hons)(Mechanical Engineering)
Technical Support Engineer
Information Technology Department
Asiasoft Online Pte Ltd
Tampines Central 1 #04-01 Tampines Plaza
Singapore 529541
Republic of Singapore
Mobile: +65-9648-9798
MSN: teoenming@xxxxxxxxxxx
Alma Maters: Singapore Polytechnic, National University of Singapore
On 08/24/2009 11:12 PM, Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming) wrote:
Hi,
I think I know the reason why my Windows HVM and Linux PV Dom U guests could
previously access the outside world under OpenSUSE 11.1 32-bit host with Xen
pv-ops dom 0 kernel 2.6.30-rc6 from Jeremy's git branch (see my blog).
When I execute the "iptables --table nat -L" command on the OpenSUSE 11.1
Xen pv-ops Dom 0 host in the office:
Chain PREROUTING (policy ACCEPT)
target prot opt source destination
Chain POSTROUTING (policy ACCEPT)
target prot opt source destination
Chain OUTPUT (policy ACCEPT)
target prot opt source destination
That means everything is allowed in the nat table with default policy of
accept for all chains in that table. It also means xend daemon did not add
entries to the nat table when dom U guests are started on the OpenSUSE 11.1
host. The iptables entries that should be added to the nat table by xend but
not added are:
iptables -A FORWARD -m physdev --physdev-in eth0 --physdev-out '!' eth0 -j
ACCEPT
iptables -A FORWARD -m physdev --physdev-out eth0 --physdev-in '!' eth0 -j
ACCEPT
In contrast, my Fedora 11 64-bit Xen pv-ops dom 0 host in my home have above
entries added to the nat table by the xend daemon. Perhaps I should flush
the nat table only to test out my Windows XP Home HVM dom U connectivity to
the outside world. I will not flush the filter table.
Do you have any suggestions on the entries in the nat table?
Regards,
Mr. Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming) Dip(Mechatronics Engineering)
BEng(Hons)(Mechanical Engineering)
Technical Support Engineer
Information Technology Department
Asiasoft Online Pte Ltd
Tampines Central 1 #04-01 Tampines Plaza
Singapore 529541
Republic of Singapore
Mobile: +65-9648-9798
MSN: teoenming@xxxxxxxxxxx
-----Original Message-----
From: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Teo En Ming
(Zhang Enming)
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 10:24 AM
To: enming.teo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; cazyokoyama@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [Xen-devel] Bridged Networking in Dom 0 and VirtualNIC in
WindowsXP Home 32-bit HVM Guest
Dear Caz, Boris, and Pasi,
I am reading XenNetworking at the Xen Wiki:
http://wiki.xensource.com/xenwiki/XenNetworking
<QOUTE>
The default Xen configuration uses bridging within domain 0 to allow all
domains to appear on the network as individual hosts. If extensive use of
iptables is made in domain 0 (e.g. a firewall) then this can affect bridging
because bridged packets pass through the PREROUTING, FORWARD and POSTROUTING
iptables chains. This means that packets being bridged between guest domains
and the external network will need to be permitted to pass those chains. The
most likely problem is the FORWARD chain being configured to DROP or REJECT
packets (this is different from IP forwarding in the kernel).
iptable FORWARDing can be disabled for all packets; to prevent the dom0 from
acting as an IP router: echo 0> /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward.
A slightly more secure method is to allowing packet forwarding (at the
iptables level) between the external physical interface and the vifs for the
guests. For a machine with a single ethernet card this would be:
iptables -A FORWARD -m physdev --physdev-in eth0 --physdev-out '!' eth0 -j
ACCEPT iptables -A FORWARD -m physdev --physdev-out eth0 --physdev-in '!'
eth0 -j ACCEPT
(needs the ipt_physdev [aka xt_physdev] module to be available).
</QUOTE>
So I may need to tweak the nat table in my iptables configuration. I don't
think the problem is with the filter table.
Could you post your iptables configuration with the "iptables --table filter
-L" and "iptables --table nat -L" commands?
Thank you very much.
Regards,
Mr. Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming) Dip(Mechatronics Engineering)
BEng(Hons)(Mechanical Engineering) Technical Support Engineer Information
Technology Department Asiasoft Online Pte Ltd Tampines Central 1 #04-01
Tampines Plaza Singapore 529541 Republic of Singapore
Mobile: +65-9648-9798
MSN: teoenming@xxxxxxxxxxx
-----Original Message-----
From: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Teo En Ming
(Zhang Enming)
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 9:40 AM
To: cazyokoyama@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [Xen-devel] Bridged Networking in Dom 0 and VirtualNIC in
Windows XP Home 32-bit HVM Guest
Thank you.
But I still need to modify the firewall to allow my Win XP Home Dom U to
talk to the outside world.
Regards,
Mr. Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming) Dip(Mechatronics Engineering)
BEng(Hons)(Mechanical Engineering) Technical Support Engineer Information
Technology Department Asiasoft Online Pte Ltd Tampines Central 1 #04-01
Tampines Plaza Singapore 529541 Republic of Singapore
Mobile: +65-9648-9798
MSN: teoenming@xxxxxxxxxxx
-----Original Message-----
From: Caz Yokoyama [mailto:cazyokoyama@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 8:52 AM
To: enming.teo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [Xen-devel] Bridged Networking in Dom 0 and Virtual NIC in
Windows XP Home 32-bit HVM Guest
Congratulation.
-caz
-----Original Message-----
From: Mr. Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming) [mailto:enming.teo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Sunday, August 23, 2009 5:11 PM
To: enming.teo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: cazyokoyama@xxxxxxxxx; xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Bridged Networking in Dom 0 and Virtual NIC in
Windows XP Home 32-bit HVM Guest
Hi Caz,
I did a tcpdump on my ethernet bridge eth0.
When the firewall on Dom 0 is up, I see DHCP request packets but NO DHCP
reply packets.
When I flushed all the firewall rules on Dom 0, I see both DHCP request and
reply packets going to my Win XP Home Dom U.
--
Mr. Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming) Dip(Mechatronics Engineering)
BEng(Hons)(Mechanical Engineering) Technical Support Engineer Information
Technology Department Asiasoft Online Pte Ltd Tampines Central 1 #04-01
Tampines Plaza Singapore 529541 Republic of Singapore
Mobile: +65-9648-9798
MSN: teoenming@xxxxxxxxxxx
Alma Maters: Singapore Polytechnic, National University of Singapore
On 08/24/2009 08:01 AM, Mr. Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming) wrote:
Hi Caz,
I found out why my Win XP Home HVM dom U couldn't access the outside
world. It's because of the firewall rules on my Dom 0. When I flushed
all my firewall rules, Dom U could obtain IP address from my wireless
router and surf the internet.
So I have to think of adding appropriate firewall rules so that my Dom
U could access the outside world when the firewall is enabled.
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.63/2316 - Release Date: 08/20/09
18:06:00
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.63/2316 - Release Date: 08/20/09
18:06:00
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.63/2316 - Release Date: 08/20/09
18:06:00
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.63/2316 - Release Date: 08/20/09
18:06:00
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.63/2316 - Release Date: 08/20/09
18:06:00
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.63/2316 - Release Date: 08/23/09
18:03:00
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.63/2316 - Release Date: 08/23/09
18:03:00
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.65/2322 - Release Date: 08/23/09
18:03:00
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
|
|
| |
|
Home