"Ralf G. R. Bergs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, 11 Aug 2000 16:19:35 -0600 (MDT), Rick Macdonald wrote:
>
> [...]
> Ok, I've tried to analyze the setup.
>
> The virtual ethernet adapter is probably just like an additional real
> ethernet adapter. Thus I have the following setup:
>
> LAN --------------+-------------
> | real eth adapter
> +-+-+
> host OS | |
> +-+-+
> | virt. eth adapter
> +-+-+
> guest OS | |
> +---+
>
> As I said communication between the host and guest OS does work -- I've
> already successfully FTPed between the two machines.
>
> For communication between the guest OS and the LAN to work the host OS must
> be performing proxy ARP for the guest OS. Otherwise the host OS would NOT
> accept packets with a target IP address other than it's own IP address (that
> belongs to the real eth adapter, that is.)
>
> Obviously there must be some problem, maybe with the proxy arping?
>
> Do you agree to this interpretation? What can I do to gain further insight
> about what's going wrong?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ralf
>
Hi,
is the routing on the host/guest machines correct?
Example:
LAN --------------+------------- 192.168.1.*
| real eth adapter 192.168.1.1
+-+-+
host OS | |
+-+-+ 192.168.2.1
| virt. eth adapter
+-+-+ 192.168.2.2
guest OS | |
+---+
On the Guest you need to set the default route to eth0:
$ route add default eth0
On the LAN you have to tell the machines to route packets for
192.168.2.* through the host (Assuming they are Windows):
C:\> route -p add 192.168.2.0 mask 255.255.255.0 192.168.1.1
If you use the same subnet for host/guest and lan, the host has to do
bridging of IP-Packets between the two interfaces, i have no idea how
to do this on NT.....
HTH,
Ramin
