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-devel

RE: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] example and default IP addresses

To: "Ian Jackson" <Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Keir Fraser" <Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] example and default IP addresses
From: "Dan Magenheimer" <dan.magenheimer@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 18:52:39 -0700
Cc: "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 17:53:40 -0800
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <18319.30118.645434.899532@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
Organization: Oracle Corporation
Reply-to: "dan.magenheimer@xxxxxxxxxx" <dan.magenheimer@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thread-index: AchZdM0mqX/UJe8xQxWdLeBrDM+J0g==
Hi Keir --

Per the below discussion, could you revert the change to network-nat
in the new cset 16739?

Thanks,
Dan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Ian Jackson
> Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 8:35 AM
> To: dan.magenheimer@xxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] example and default IP addresses
> 
> 
> Dan Magenheimer writes ("RE: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] example and 
> default IP addresses"):
> > In the patch to network-nat, I see that you are replacing 
> the 10.0.0.0/16
> > usage with 192.0.2.0/24.  Actually, vif-nat has a dependency on it
> > being 10.0.0.0/8(!), at least if more than 256 domains are 
> launched (not
> > necessarily simultaneously, just sequentially created and 
> destroyed).
> > In vif-nat ip_from_dom, IP's are created as 10.x.y.z for 
> vifw.z, where
> > x*256+y==w.
> 
> Firstly, I think it's important to note that network-nat and vif-nat
> are pretty ropey.  Anyone who is using them will almost certainly have
> had to adjust them to local conditions anyway.  For example, these
> scripts attempt to find and edit your local dhcp server configuration
> file !
> 
> > I'm not sure what the right answer is, but 192.0.2.0/24 definitely
> > doesn't have enough bits.  And regardless of the answer, 
> vif-nat will
> > need to be patched also.
> 
> Having said that, I think you're right.  vif-nat does indeed have to
> use 10/8 for static hosts for the reason you give.  Although really I
> think this is a poor approach.  So my change to network-nat ought not
> to be applied.
> 
> In practice many people using this code in any real setting are likely
> to fall foul of address clashes anyway as it's very likely that they
> have at least some use of 10/8 ...
> 
> Ian.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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