On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 6:19 PM, Rudi Ahlers <Rudi@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 12:59 PM, Fajar A. Nugraha <fajar@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 5:50 PM, Rudi Ahlers <Rudi@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> Here's the output of brctl show:
>>>
>>>
>>> root@zaxen01:[~]$ brctl show
>>> bridge name bridge id STP enabled interfaces
>>> xenbr0 8000.feffffffffff no vifpict0
>>> vifandr0
>>> vifzafe0
>>> vifserv0
>>> vifraft0
>>> vifplut0
>>> viferis0
>>> vifbyra0
>>> vifanim0
>>> vifacti0
>>> peth0
>>> vif0.0
>>>
>>
>> You can try by sniffing packets on uplink physical interface (should
>> be peth0 in your case). Test with simple packets (like ping) and snoop
>> it with tcpdump (something like "tcpdump -n -i peth0 icmp"). That
>> would at least tell you whether packets can get to physical interface
>> or not.
>>
>> If the traffic is there but somehow you still have problems, the
>> source of problem might be elsewhere and not in your bridge setup.
>> Might be switch blocking ports with many MACs, or router caching old
>> MAC addresses.
>>
>> --
>> Fajar
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>
> Hi Fajar,
>
> The packets does indeed get to the physical interface, but I get no
> return ICMP packets, but it's almost asif that originating packets are
> incomplete:
>
> I got this from "tcpdump -n -i peth0 icmp" on the dom0 hostnode:
>
> 18:06:56.043744 IP 196.34.136.58 > 66.197.167.226: ICMP echo request,
> id 34310, seq 1, length 64
> 18:06:57.053851 IP 196.34.136.58 > 66.197.167.226: ICMP echo request,
> id 34310, seq 2, length 64
>
>
> Yet, when I ping another VPS on the same dom0, I see an icmp reply:
>
> [root@vps ~]# ping -c2 196.34.136.51
> PING 196.34.136.51 (196.34.136.51) 56(84) bytes of data.
> 64 bytes from 196.34.136.51: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.903 ms
> 64 bytes from 196.34.136.51: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.115 ms
>
>
>
>
> These IP's is completely open on the network firewall as well.
>
>
>
> --
I see now that none of the VPS's can establish any outbound
connections, yet the server itself can. I have just upgraded the OS,
as follows:
root@zaxen01:[~]$ uname -a
Linux zaxen01.softdux.com 2.6.18-164.6.1.el5xen #1 SMP Tue Nov 3
16:48:13 EST 2009 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
root@zaxen01:[~]$ xm dmesg
__ __ _____ _ ____ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ ____
\ \/ /___ _ __ |___ / / | |___ \ / |/ /_ | || | / /_ / | ___| | ___|
\ // _ \ \047_ \ |_ \ | | __) |__| | \047_ \| || |_| \047_ \ |
| / _ \ |___ \
/ \ __/ | | | ___) || |_ / __/|__| | (_) |__ _| (_) || || __/ |___) |
/_/\_\___|_| |_| |____(_)_(_)_____| |_|\___/ |_|(_)___(_)_(_)___|_|____/
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/netos/xen
University of Cambridge Computer Laboratory
Xen version 3.1.2-164.6.1.el5 (mockbuild@xxxxxxxxxx) (gcc version
4.1.2 20080704 (Red Hat 4.1.2-46)) Tue Nov 3 16:04:14 EST 2009
Latest ChangeSet: unavailable
--
Kind Regards
Rudi Ahlers
CEO, SoftDux Hosting
Web: http://www.SoftDux.com
Office: 087 805 9573
Cell: 082 554 7532
_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
|
Home