No, still the ping DUP problem is there. Is there difference between the tap0 created by tunctl and openvpn? Or in your configuration tunctl is adopted?
Cheers, Jfhu 2012/3/21 Aaron Rosen <aro...@clemson.edu> > As a blind guess does this change anything (Using tunctl over your openvpn > command)? > > ovs-vsctl del-port br0 tap0 > tunctl -d tap0 > tunctl > ovs-vsctl add-port br0 tap0 > Restart vm using the new tap0 > > > > On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 1:20 AM, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote: > >> The evidence points to a configuration error, since plenty of other >> users do not see duplicate packets in similar situations. Again I >> suggest that you read REPORTING-BUGS and provide the information >> suggested there. >> >> On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 01:04:20PM +0800, Jingfei Hu wrote: >> > Hi, Ben, >> > In the last few days, I have spent my spare time on figuring out the >> reason >> > of ping DUP problem. Here is my result: >> > The network setting including netmask\default gateway etc. contains no >> > error. Following is the ip address setting and routing table of the host >> > and the guest: >> > -------------------------------------------------------------- >> > Host: >> > IP address: >> > br0: 192.168.1.27 netmask 255.255.255.0 >> > Routing table: >> > Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use >> > Iface >> > 0.0.0.0 192.168.1.1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 >> br0 >> > 192.168.1.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 >> br0 >> > >> > Guest: >> > IP address: >> > eth0: 192.168.1.26 netmask 255.255.255.0 >> > Routing table: >> > Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use >> > Iface >> > 0.0.0.0 192.168.1.1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 >> eth0 >> > 169.254.0.0(link-local) 0.0.0.0 255.255.0.0 U 1000 >> 0 >> > 0 eth0 >> > 192.168.1.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 1 0 0 >> eth0 >> > -------------------------------------------------------------- >> > The ping DUP problem is still there. >> > Then in another machine, the same steps are executed with same host os >> and >> > same guest os, except that br0 is created using bridge-utils package, >> not >> > ovs-vsctl. When ping from the guest, the DUP problem has gone. So it >> seems >> > that the bridge created by ovs-vsctl is different than the bridge >> created >> > by bridge-utils package. Is that correct to say this problem is related >> to >> > ovs? >> > >> > Cheers, >> > >> > Hu Jingfei >> > >> > 3/19 Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> >> > >> > > I don't see how br0 and eth0 having the same MAC address would cause >> the >> > > behavior that you mention. I would suggest following a conventional >> > > troubleshooting procedure instead of making this assumption. >> > > >> > > If you want us to help with that troubleshooting then you can start >> from >> > > the suggestions in REPORTING-BUGS. >> > > >> > > On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 10:12:17AM +0800, Jingfei Hu wrote: >> > > > Thanks, Ben, >> > > > But there is a problem here. The following commands have not >> changed: >> > > > ------------------------------------ >> > > > sudo ovs-vsctl add-br br0 >> > > > sudo ovs-vsctl set bridge br0 datapath_type=netdev >> > > > sudo ovs-vsctl add-port br0 eth0 >> > > > sudo ovs-vsctl add-port br0 tap0 >> > > > ------------------------------------ >> > > > The tap0 interface is created using OpenVPN utility with following >> > > command: >> > > > ------------------------------------ >> > > > sudo openvpn --mktun --dev tap0 >> > > > ------------------------------------ >> > > > Then I have created a VM using VirtualBox-4.1 and made the VM use >> the >> > > > Bridged Adapter tap0. IP address settings are: >> > > > ------------------------------------ >> > > > In my host: >> > > > sudo ifconfig br0 192.168.1.24 netmask 255.255.255.0 >> > > > eth0 and tap0 got no ip address assigned >> > > > In the guest, i.e. VM: >> > > > sudo ifconfig eth0 192.168.1.26 netmask 255.255.255.0 >> > > > ------------------------------------ >> > > > After that, my guest is able to reach the outside network, and the >> > > machine >> > > > which resides in the same LAN, says it's ip address is 192.168.1.14, >> > > could >> > > > also found my guest. The PROBLEM is: >> > > > when I ping the 192.168.1.14 from my guest, the ICMP reply is always >> > > > duplicated. I guess the cause is because the br0 has the same mac >> address >> > > > with eth0, but don't know how to solve it. >> > > > Any ideas will be appreciated. Sorry for the question in question, I >> > > should >> > > > ask it in one post. >> > > > >> > > > Cheers, >> > > > Hu Jingfei >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > 2012/3/18 Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> >> > > > >> > > > > On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 10:46:36PM +0800, Jingfei Hu wrote: >> > > > > > I have installed OVS userspace program on Ubuntu Oneiric >> according to >> > > > > > INSTALL.Linux. Then I have added a bridge using following >> commands: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > sudo ovs-vsctl add-br br0 >> > > > > > sudo ovs-vsctl set bridge br0 datapath_type=netdev >> > > > > > sudo ovs-vsctl add-port br0 eth0 >> > > > > > sudo ovs-vsctl add-port br0 tap0 >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Then I setup the bridge br0 as follows: >> > > > > > sudo ifconfig br0 192.168.1.24 netmask 255.255.255.0 >> > > > > > After that, I check it with command ifconfig -a, finding that >> the >> > > mac br0 >> > > > > > and eth0 have the same mac. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Is it normal? >> > > > > >> > > > > Yes. >> > > > > >> > > >> _______________________________________________ >> discuss mailing list >> discuss@openvswitch.org >> http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >> > > > > -- > Aaron O. Rosen > Masters Student - Network Communication > 306B Fluor Daniel > > >
_______________________________________________ discuss mailing list discuss@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
