WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-users

Re: [Xen-users] Re: [Xen-devel] ARP problems with xen 4.0 with pvops ker

To: Pasi Kärkkäinen <pasik@xxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-users] Re: [Xen-devel] ARP problems with xen 4.0 with pvops kernel 2.6.32.15
From: Boris Derzhavets <bderzhavets@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2010 05:47:42 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@xxxxxxxx>, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, luis.silva@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivery-date: Wed, 09 Jun 2010 05:49:00 -0700
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s1024; t=1276087662; bh=y3yZDCjDSue1zP5kZTWUSBQu2iQR7qU5P6wwAe6OqJs=; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=yeHkC/JHN4n4K4OZjSdXCoHl5DfL8vJzEpz6PVFfzJqj6srPTpsIvkceU+HEEitQqNFIh5zXE2aROHjAO1picRqBuBIdK1wit8WMiaj9wt9y4gxjmVM912go16Uf73HoGX+ercS8c7WzhfmUyGVxBo/ZocBiokIcwkRmJhS9Tko=
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=DwLl7xwneHUfaa0ueIwxMwoMyyJB9csgPQA3u5tZpY/aU595T6n54Tl3Dp3iu2dabnWAIWSoIqVRCQp4HR5AECaUoZW2q7ZyiMZTcUlLX3Y/RNZp2FwlgLWdEYzWD5WUl9uav3xHgY+oJR1iiFDSsKxsLffBLsrprZ0CaRMRJnQ=;
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20100607075511.GW17817@xxxxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I was able to virt-install F13 PV DomU in nographics mode under Xen 4.0.1-rc2-pre (2.6.32.15 pvops c2cb3df04eb3ff68d0de102b2acacc9b8616e659) at the point of extracting data from Apache mirror at Dom0 on top of Ubuntu 10.04  ( text console mode message)
-------------------------------------------------
 2 extracting cpio errors.  Bad Magic
-------------------------------------------------
However, virt-install proceeds further to promt "set up VNC at DomU"
and completed successfully.
VNC mode cannot pass through this extractions. It just hangs.

Boris.

--- On Mon, 6/7/10, Pasi Kärkkäinen <pasik@xxxxxx> wrote:

From: Pasi Kärkkäinen <pasik@xxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-users] Re: [Xen-devel] ARP problems with xen 4.0 with pvops kernel 2.6.32.15
To: "Boris Derzhavets" <bderzhavets@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Jeremy Fitzhardinge" <jeremy@xxxxxxxx>, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, luis.silva@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Monday, June 7, 2010, 3:55 AM

On Sun, Jun 06, 2010 at 11:54:11AM -0700, Boris Derzhavets wrote:
>    Virt-install hangs attempting to retrieve updates.img from Apache Mirror
>    setup at Dom0
>    with kernel 2.6.32.15
>    It doesn't happen with 2.6.32.10 (12,14 final).
>    Environment Xen 4.0 Dom0 on top Ubuntu 10.04 Server. Libvirt is 0.8.0 .
>    Attempting  to virt-install F13 PV DomU in vnc mode.
>
>      I believe that builds are consistent.
>    Runtime behavior is the same for .10, .14, .15. Seems to be communicating
>    problem between DomU and Dom0 during HTTP download.
>

I'm seeing PV domU network issues aswell.. when running Xen 4.0.0 on Fedora 13.
I'll have to dig more into it..

-- Pasi

>    Boris.
>
>    --- On Sun, 6/6/10, Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>      From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@xxxxxxxx>
>      Subject: Re: [Xen-users] Re: [Xen-devel] ARP problems with xen 4.0 with
>      pvops kernel 2.6.32.15
>      To: "Boris Derzhavets" <bderzhavets@xxxxxxxxx>
>      Cc: luis.silva@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
>      xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>      Date: Sunday, June 6, 2010, 12:43 PM
>
>      On 06/06/2010 03:19 AM, Boris Derzhavets wrote:
>      > Network issues when working with DomUs in 2.6.32.14 and finally been
>      > fixed,
>      > seem to appear again in 2.6.32.15. Reverting to back to xen/stable -
>      > 2.6.32.10
>      > works as a fix again.
>      >
>
>      There are no substantial differences between 2.6.32.14 and .15.  If
>      there are any differences in behaviour between them, then I'd suspect
>      some inconsistency from boot to boot, or in your kernel build process.
>
>          J
>
>      >
>      > Boris
>      >
>      > --- On *Thu, 6/3/10, Luís Silva /<[1]luis.silva@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>/*
>      wrote:
>      >
>      >
>      >     From: Luís Silva <[2]luis.silva@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>      >     Subject: Re: [Xen-users] Re: [Xen-devel] ARP problems with xen 4.0
>      >     with pvops kernel
>      >     To: "Boris Derzhavets" <[3]bderzhavets@xxxxxxxxx>
>      >     Cc: "Jeremy Fitzhardinge" <[4]jeremy@xxxxxxxx>,
>      >     [5]xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, [6]xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>      >     Date: Thursday, June 3, 2010, 6:20 AM
>      >
>      >     Hello,
>      >
>      >     Thanks for the suggestion, xen/stable works ok for me. Only
>      >     problem is that I have to disable offload do get dhcp to work on
>      >     domU, but the problem I described before doesn't exist in this
>      >     kernel. Later today I'm going to try a previous build I have based
>      >     on stable-2.6.32.x (2.6.32.13) to check if it already had this
>      >     problem or not and I'll post the results.
>      >
>      >     Luís
>      >
>      >     On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 12:26 -0700, Boris Derzhavets wrote:
>      >>     Could you,please, build and try 2.6.32.10 ( xen/stable) ?
>      >>
>      >>     Boris.
>      >>
>      >>     --- On *Wed, 6/2/10, Luís Silva
>      **/<[7]luis.silva@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>/*
>      >>     wrote:
>      >>
>      >>
>      >>         From: Luís Silva <[8]luis.silva@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>      >>         Subject: [Xen-users] Re: [Xen-devel] ARP problems with xen
>      >>         4.0 with pvops kernel
>      >>         To: "Jeremy Fitzhardinge" <[9]jeremy@xxxxxxxx>
>      >>         Cc: [10]xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
>      [11]xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>      >>         Date: Wednesday, June 2, 2010, 2:53 PM
>      >>
>      >>         Hello,
>      >>
>      >>         On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 09:06 -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>      >>>         On 06/02/2010 01:47 AM, Luís Silva wrote:
>      >>>         > Hello,
>      >>>         >
>      >>>         > I'm using the latest stable-2.6.32.x. I already tried
>      "ethtool -K
>      >>>         > <bridge> tx off", but that didn't make any difference.
>      Also, this only
>      >>>         > happen with pv, in hvm mode all works ok and the domU sees
>      the arp
>      >>>         > messages...
>      >>>
>      >>>         Yes, ARP is a new twist on network problems.  I'm guessing
>      you're using
>      >>>         hvm without stubdoms, which means that its networking
>      originates from
>      >>>         qemu within dom0, whereas PV and HVM+stubdom comes via
>      netback.
>      >>>
>      >>>
>      >>         Yes, when I mentioned hvm I was talking about hvm without
>      >>         stubdoms. I haven't tried those yet.
>      >>>         But aside from that, I'm stumped.  Are you running any
>      firewalls on
>      >>>         either side?   Can you try disabling all the offloads (tx,
>      rx, gso, tso)
>      >>>         on all the relevent interfaces (bridge, netback, within the
>      guest) and
>      >>>         see if that changes anything?
>      >>>
>      >>>             J
>      >>>
>      >>>
>      >>
>      >>         Ok, this is the bridge interface:
>      >>
>      >>         brctl show
>      >>         bridge name    bridge id        STP enabled    interfaces
>      >>         virbr0        8000.feffffffffff    no        vif1.0
>      >>
>      >>         ifconfig virbr0
>      >>         virbr0    Link encap:Ethernet  HWaddr c2:ef:67:2b:a4:23
>      >>                   inet addr:192.168.120.254  Bcast:192.168.120.255
>      Mask:255.255.255.0
>      >>                   inet6 addr: fe80::c0ef:67ff:fe2b:a423/64 Scope:Link
>      >>                   UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST  MTU:1500  Metric:1
>      >>                   RX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
>      >>                   TX packets:25 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0
>      carrier:0
>      >>                   collisions:0 txqueuelen:0
>      >>                   RX bytes:0 (0.0
>      >>          B)
>      >>          TX bytes:4662 (4.6 KB)
>      >>
>      >>
>      >>
>      >>         I'm not using firewall other than the rules defined by
>      >>         libvirt. DomU has no firewall and the rules in dom0 are only
>      >>         these (virbr0 is natted to the outside, virbr1 is routed. The
>      >>         result is the same in either one of them):
>      >>
>      >>         sudo iptables -L -n -v
>      >>         Chain INPUT (policy ACCEPT 241K packets, 53M bytes)
>      >>          pkts bytes target     prot opt in     out     source
>             destination
>      >>             0     0 ACCEPT     udp  --  virbr1 *       0.0.0.0/0
>            0.0.0.0/0           udp dpt:53
>      >>             0     0 ACCEPT     tcp  --  virbr1 *       0.0.0.0/0
>            0.0.0.0/0           tcp dpt:53
>      >>
>      >>
>      >>             0     0 ACCEPT     udp  --  virbr1 *       0.0.0.0/0
>            0.0.0.0/0           udp dpt:67
>      >>             0     0 ACCEPT     tcp  --  virbr1 *       0.0.0.0/0
>            0.0.0.0/0           tcp dpt:67
>      >>             8   515 ACCEPT     udp  --  virbr0 *       0.0.0.0/0
>            0.0.0.0/0           udp dpt:53
>      >>             0     0
>      >>
>      >>          ACCEPT     tcp  --  virbr0 *       0.0.0.0/0
>      0.0.0.0/0           tcp dpt:53
>      >>             0     0 ACCEPT     udp  --  virbr0 *       0.0.0.0/0
>            0.0.0.0/0           udp dpt:67
>      >>             0     0 ACCEPT     tcp  --  virbr0 *       0.0.0.0/0
>            0.0.0.0/0           tcp dpt:67
>      >>
>      >>         Chain FORWARD (policy ACCEPT 0 packets, 0 bytes)
>      >>          pkts bytes target
>      >>          prot
>      >>          opt in     out     source               destination
>      >>             0     0 ACCEPT     all  --  *      virbr1  0.0.0.0/0
>            192.168.121.0/24
>      >>             0     0 ACCEPT     all  --  virbr1 *
>         192.168.121.0/24     0.0.0.0/0
>      >>             0     0 ACCEPT     all  --  virbr1 virbr1  0.0.0.0/0
>
>      >>
>      >>          0.0.0.0/0
>      >>             0     0 REJECT     all  --  *      virbr1  0.0.0.0/0
>            0.0.0.0/0           reject-with icmp-port-unreachable
>      >>             0     0 REJECT     all  --  virbr1 *       0.0.0.0/0
>            0.0.0.0/0           reject-with icmp-port-unreachable
>      >>            13  3448 ACCEPT     all  --  *      virbr0  0.0.0.0/0
>            192.168.120.0/24
>      >>          state
>      >>          RELATED,ESTABLISHED
>      >>            16  1374 ACCEPT     all  --  virbr0 *
>         192.168.120.0/24     0.0.0.0/0
>      >>             0     0 ACCEPT     all  --  virbr0 virbr0  0.0.0.0/0
>            0.0.0.0/0
>      >>             0     0 REJECT     all  --  *      virbr0  0.0.0.0/0
>            0.0.0.0/0           reject-with icmp-port-unreachable
>      >>             0     0 REJECT     all  --
>      >>          virbr0
>      >>          *       0.0.0.0/0            0.0.0.0/0           reject-with
>      icmp-port-unreachable
>      >>
>      >>         Chain OUTPUT (policy ACCEPT 233K packets, 27M bytes)
>      >>          pkts bytes target     prot opt in     out     source
>             destination
>      >>
>      >>
>      >>
>      >>
>      >>         And these are the various offload parameters as set at boot:
>      >>
>      >>         Offload parameters for virbr0:
>      >>         rx-checksumming: on
>      >>         tx-checksumming: on
>      >>         scatter-gather: on
>      >>         tcp-segmentation-offload: on
>      >>         udp-fragmentation-offload: on
>      >>         generic-segmentation-offload: on
>      >>         generic-receive-offload: off
>      >>         large-receive-offload: off
>      >>
>      >>         Offload parameters for vif1.0:
>      >>         rx-checksumming: on
>      >>         tx-checksumming: on
>      >>         scatter-gather: on
>      >>         tcp-segmentation-offload: on
>      >>         udp-fragmentation-offload: off
>      >>         generic-segmentation-offload: on
>      >>         generic-receive-offload: off
>      >>         large-receive-offload: off
>      >>
>      >>         Offload parameters for eth0:
>      >>         rx-checksumming: on
>      >>         tx-checksumming: on
>      >>         scatter-gather: on
>      >>         tcp-segmentation-offload: on
>      >>         udp-fragmentation-offload: off
>      >>         generic-segmentation-offload: off
>      >>         generic-receive-offload: off
>      >>         large-receive-offload: off
>      >>
>      >>
>      >>
>      >>         To disable all checksuming I run the following commands:
>      >>         dom0:
>      >>
>      >>         sudo ethtool -K virbr0 tx off sg off tso off gso off gro off
>      >>         sudo ethtool -K vif1.0 tx off sg off tso off gso off gro off
>      >>
>      >>
>      >>         domU
>      >>
>      >>         sudo ethtool -K eth0 tx off sg off tso off gso off gro off
>      >>
>      >>
>      >>
>      >>         This managed to get all parameter to off in the mentioned
>      >>         interfaces, but unfortunately the result is the same. The arp
>      >>         requests get to vif1.0, but not to eth0 on the domU.
>      >>
>      >>         sudo tcpdump -i vif1.0 -n -vv arp
>      >>         tcpdump: WARNING: vif1.0: no IPv4 address assigned
>      >>         tcpdump: listening on vif1.0, link-type EN10MB (Ethernet),
>      capture size 96 bytes
>      >>         19:43:51.233378 ARP, Ethernet (len 6), IPv4 (len 4), Request
>      who-has 192.168.120.1 tell 192.168.120.254, length 28
>      >>         19:43:52.233164 ARP, Ethernet (len 6), IPv4 (len 4), Request
>      who-has 192.168.120.1 tell 192.168.120.254, length 28
>      >>         19:43:53.233166 ARP, Ethernet (len 6), IPv4 (len 4), Request
>      who-has 192.168.120.1 tell 192.168.120.254, length 28
>      >>         19:43:54.684214 ARP, Ethernet (len 6), IPv4 (len 4), Request
>      who-has 192.168.120.1 tell 192.168.120.254, length 28
>      >>         19:43:55.684218 ARP, Ethernet (len 6), IPv4 (len 4), Request
>      who-has 192.168.120.1 tell 192.168.120.254, length 28
>      >>         19:43:56.684232 ARP, Ethernet (len 6), IPv4 (len 4), Request
>      who-has 192.168.120.1 tell 192.168.120.254, length 28
>      >>
>      >>
>      >>
>      >>         I hope this information is enough. If I can provide anything
>      >>         else to help debug or test, please just ask! ;)
>      >>
>      >>         Thanks in advance,
>      >>         Luís
>      >>
>      >>>         >
>      >>>         > Thanks,
>      >>>         > Luís
>      >>>         >
>      >>>         > On Tue, 2010-06-01 at 18:20 -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge
>      wrote:
>      >>>         >> On 06/01/2010 05:38 PM, Luís Silva wrote:
>      >>>         >> > Hello,
>      >>>         >> >
>      >>>         >> > Finally I managed to get a xen 4.0 working on ubuntu
>      10.04 with pvops
>      >>>         >> > kernel and libvirt. However I am having some problems
>      with
>      >>>         >> > networking... after initial installation with
>      netinstall image in hvm
>      >>>         >> > mode, when I transform the vm in xen pv (via pygrub
>      with the current
>      >>>         >> > ubuntu kernel), networking startEd to act weird...
>      >>>         >> >
>      >>>         >> > Basically I'm not using a network script from xen. I
>      define a bridge
>      >>>         >> > (manually or via libvirt, the result is the same) and I
>      use vif-bridge
>      >>>         >> > to connect the vif to it. But now the weird part comes:
>      I can
>      >>>         >> > communicate from domU to dom0, but not the other way
>      >>>          around,
>      >>>          unless I
>      >>>         >> > keep a ping running from domU to dom0... That's right,
>      weird... while
>      >>>         >> > trying the ping from dom0 to domU, I used tcpdump both
>      on the bridge,
>      >>>         >> > on the vif and on the eth0 in the domU. The arp packets
>      never get to
>      >>>         >> > domU, but they appear both in the bridge and the vif
>      sniff's...
>      >>>         >>
>      >>>         >> What version of kernel are you using in dom0 and domU?
>      There was a
>      >>>         >> netback bug which caused problems with dom0<->domU
>      communication, but it
>      >>>         >> has been fixed for a while in 2.6.32 (but only recently
>      in .31).  The
>      >>>         >> workaround is to disable tx checksum offload on your
>      bridge (ethtool -K
>      >>>         >> <bridge> tx off).
>      >>>         >>
>      >>>         >>     J
>      >>>         >>
>      >>>         >> >
>      >>>         >> > Here is the bridge:
>      >>>         >> > ifconfig virbr0
>      >>>         >> > virbr0    Link encap:Ethernet  HWaddr
>      fe:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
>      >>>         >> >
>      >>>
>      >>>          inet addr:192.168.120.254  Bcast:192.168.120.255
>      Mask:255.255.255.0
>      >>>         >> >           inet6 addr: fe80::7cee:4bff:fe82:e63f/64
>      Scope:Link
>      >>>         >> >           UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST  MTU:1500
>      Metric:1
>      >>>         >> >           RX packets:16 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0
>      frame:0
>      >>>         >> >           TX packets:226 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0
>      carrier:0
>      >>>         >> >           collisions:0 txqueuelen:0
>      >>>         >> >           RX bytes:952 (952.0 B)  TX bytes:13953 (13.9
>      KB)
>      >>>         >> >
>      >>>         >> >
>      >>>         >> > brctl show
>      >>>         >> > bridge name    bridge id        STP enabled
>      interfaces
>      >>>         >> > virbr0        8000.feffffffffff    no        vif5.0
>      >>>         >> >
>      >>>         >> >
>      >>>         >> > tcpdump -i virbr0 -vv -n
>      >>>         >> > tcpdump: listening on virbr0, link-type EN10MB
>      (Ethernet), capture size 96 bytes
>      >>>         >> > 01:31:25.945151 IP (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 0, offset 0,
>      flags [DF],
>      >>>          proto ICMP (1),
>      >>>          length 84)
>      >>>         >> >     192.168.120.254 > 192.168.120.1: ICMP echo request,
>      id 10317, seq 1, length 64
>      >>>         >> > 01:31:26.945361 IP (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 0, offset 0,
>      flags [DF], proto ICMP (1), length 84)
>      >>>         >> >     192.168.120.254 > 192.168.120.1: ICMP echo request,
>      id 10317, seq 2, length 64
>      >>>         >> > 01:31:27.945420 IP (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 0, offset 0,
>      flags [DF], proto ICMP (1), length 84)
>      >>>         >> >     192.168.120.254 > 192.168.120.1: ICMP echo request,
>      id 10317, seq 3, length 64
>      >>>         >> > 01:31:28.945362 IP (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 0, offset 0,
>      flags [DF], proto ICMP (1), length 84)
>      >>>         >> >     192.168.120.254 > 192.168.120.1: ICMP echo request,
>      id 10317, seq 4, length 64
>      >>>         >> > 01:31:29.945364 IP (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 0, offset 0,
>      flags [DF], proto ICMP (1), length 84)
>      >>>         >> >     192.168.120.254 > 192.168.120.1: ICMP echo request,
>      id 10317,
>      >>>          seq 5, length
>      >>>          64
>      >>>         >> > 01:31:30.944300 ARP, Ethernet (len 6), IPv4 (len 4),
>      Request who-has 192.168.120.1 tell 192.168.120.254, length 28
>      >>>         >> > 01:31:30.945359 IP (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 0, offset 0,
>      flags [DF], proto ICMP (1), length 84)
>      >>>         >> >     192.168.120.254 > 192.168.120.1: ICMP echo request,
>      id 10317, seq 6, length 64
>      >>>         >> > 01:31:31.944297 ARP, Ethernet (len 6), IPv4 (len 4),
>      Request who-has 192.168.120.1 tell 192.168.120.254, length 28
>      >>>         >> > 01:31:31.945444 IP (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 0, offset 0,
>      flags [DF], proto ICMP (1), length 84)
>      >>>         >> >     192.168.120.254 > 192.168.120.1: ICMP echo request,
>      id 10317, seq 7, length 64
>      >>>         >> > 01:31:32.944294 ARP, Ethernet (len 6), IPv4 (len 4),
>      Request who-has 192.168.120.1 tell 192.168.120.254, length 28
>      >>>         >> > 01:31:32.945401 IP (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 0, offset 0,
>      flags [DF], proto ICMP (1), length 84)
>      >>>         >> >
>      >>>
>      >>>          192.168.120.254 > 192.168.120.1: ICMP echo request, id
>      10317, seq 8, length 64
>      >>>         >> > 01:31:33.947293 ARP, Ethernet (len 6), IPv4 (len 4),
>      Request who-has 192.168.120.1 tell 192.168.120.254, length 28
>      >>>         >> > 01:31:34.947373 ARP, Ethernet (len 6), IPv4 (len 4),
>      Request who-has 192.168.120.1 tell 192.168.120.254, length 28
>      >>>         >> > 01:31:35.947353 ARP, Ethernet (len 6), IPv4 (len 4),
>      Request who-has 192.168.120.1 tell 192.168.120.254, length 28
>      >>>         >> > 01:31:37.948352 ARP, Ethernet (len 6), IPv4 (len 4),
>      Request who-has 192.168.120.1 tell 192.168.120.254, length 28
>      >>>         >> > 01:31:38.948399 ARP, Ethernet (len 6), IPv4 (len 4),
>      Request who-has 192.168.120.1 tell 192.168.120.254, length 28
>      >>>         >> > 01:31:39.948376 ARP, Ethernet (len 6), IPv4 (len 4),
>      Request who-has 192.168.120.1 tell 192.168.120.254, length 28
>      >>>         >> > 01:31:40.949356 ARP, Ethernet (len 6), IPv4 (len 4),
>      Request
>      >>>          who-has
>      >>>          192.168.120.1 tell 192.168.120.254, length 28
>      >>>         >> >
>      >>>         >> >
>      >>>         >> > tcpdump -i vif5.0 -vv -n
>      >>>         >> > tcpdump: WARNING: vif5.0: no IPv4 address assigned
>      >>>         >> > tcpdump: listening on vif5.0, link-type EN10MB
>      (Ethernet), capture size 96 bytes
>      >>>         >> > 01:32:19.956358 ARP, Ethernet (len 6), IPv4 (len 4),
>      Request who-has 192.168.120.1 tell 192.168.120.254, length 28
>      >>>         >> > 01:32:20.956358 ARP, Ethernet (len 6), IPv4 (len 4),
>      Request who-has 192.168.120.1 tell 192.168.120.254, length 28
>      >>>         >> > 01:32:21.956359 ARP, Ethernet (len 6), IPv4 (len 4),
>      Request who-has 192.168.120.1 tell 192.168.120.254, length 28
>      >>>         >> > 01:32:23.957311 ARP, Ethernet (len 6), IPv4 (len 4),
>      Request who-has 192.168.120.1 tell 192.168.120.254, length 28
>      >>>         >> > 01:32:24.957312 ARP, Ethernet (len 6), IPv4 (len 4),
>      Request who-has 192.168.120.1 tell 192.168.120.254, length
>      >>>          28
>      >>>         >> >
>      >>>          01:32:25.957359 ARP, Ethernet (len 6), IPv4 (len 4),
>      Request who-has 192.168.120.1 tell 192.168.120.254, length 28
>      >>>         >> > 01:32:27.958360 ARP, Ethernet (len 6), IPv4 (len 4),
>      Request who-has 192.168.120.1 tell 192.168.120.254, length 28
>      >>>         >> > 01:32:28.958310 ARP, Ethernet (len 6), IPv4 (len 4),
>      Request who-has 192.168.120.1 tell 192.168.120.254, length 28
>      >>>         >> > 01:32:29.958362 ARP, Ethernet (len 6), IPv4 (len 4),
>      Request who-has 192.168.120.1 tell 192.168.120.254, length 28
>      >>>         >> >
>      >>>         >> >
>      >>>         >> >
>      >>>         >> > Forwarding and iptables don't seem to be the problem,
>      because if I
>      >>>         >> > initiate a ping from domU (at the same time as the
>      failing one from
>      >>>         >> > dom0), the ping in dom0 starts to work. As soon as I
>      stop the ping in
>      >>>         >> > domU, the one in dom0 starts failing again...
>      >>>         >> >
>      >>>         >> > Is anyone having the same
>      >>>          problem? Is this a bug
>      >>>          in the kernel? In
>      >>>         >> > dom0 or domU?
>      >>>         >> >
>      >>>         >> > Thanks in advance,
>      >>>         >> > Luís
>      >>>         >> >
>      >>>         >> >
>      >>>         >> > _______________________________________________
>      >>>         >> > Xen-devel mailing list
>      >>>         >> > [12]Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>      <mailto:[13]Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>      <mailto:[14]Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>      >>>         >> > [15]http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
>      >>>         >> >
>      >>>         >>
>      >>>         >>
>      >>>         >> _______________________________________________
>      >>>         >> Xen-devel mailing list
>      >>>         >> [16]Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>      <mailto:[17]Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>      <mailto:[18]Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>      >>>         >> [19]http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
>      >>>         >>
>      >>>         >>
>      >>>         >
>      >>>
>      >>>
>      >>>
>      >>
>      >>
>      >>
>      >>         -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>      >>
>      >>         _______________________________________________
>      >>         Xen-users mailing list
>      >>         [20]Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>      >>         [21]http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
>      >>
>      >>
>      >
>      >
>      >     -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>      >
>      >     _______________________________________________
>      >     Xen-users mailing list
>      >     [22]Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>      >     </mc/compose?to=[23]Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>      >     [24]http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
>      >
>      >
>
> References
>
>    Visible links
>    1. file:///mc/compose?to=luis.silva@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>    2. file:///mc/compose?to=luis.silva@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>    3. file:///mc/compose?to=bderzhavets@xxxxxxxxx
>    4. file:///mc/compose?to=jeremy@xxxxxxxx
>    5. file:///mc/compose?to=xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>    6. file:///mc/compose?to=xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>    7. file:///mc/compose?to=luis.silva@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>    8. file:///mc/compose?to=luis.silva@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>    9. file:///mc/compose?to=jeremy@xxxxxxxx
>   10. file:///mc/compose?to=xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>   11. file:///mc/compose?to=xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>   12. file:///mc/compose?to=Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>   13. file:///mc/compose?to=Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>   14. file:///mc/compose?to=Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>   15. http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
>   16. file:///mc/compose?to=Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>   17. file:///mc/compose?to=Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>   18. file:///mc/compose?to=Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>   19. http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
>   20. file:///mc/compose?to=Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>   21. http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
>   22. file:///mc/compose?to=Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>   23. file:///mc/compose?to=Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>   24. http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users


> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel