It gives the actual state of the router that it thinks it's in.
>
> --Alex
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogl...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, August 8, 2013 4:13 AM
>> To: dev
>> Subject: anyone please: fire
3 AM
> To: dev
> Subject: anyone please: firewall rules application
>
> I feel I am on a ghost hunt.
>
> On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 10:32 AM, Daan Hoogland
> wrote:
> > H,
> >
> > I noted that in some of the 4.1 versions I have been testing setting a
> >
t;
> It explains why there is a second set of logs on the XenServer hypervisor.
>
> DL
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Jayapal Reddy Uradi [mailto:jayapalreddy.ur...@citrix.com]
>> Sent: 08 August 2013 12:55
>> To:
>> Subject: Re: anyone please
Reddy Uradi [mailto:jayapalreddy.ur...@citrix.com]
> Sent: 08 August 2013 12:55
> To:
> Subject: Re: anyone please: firewall rules application
>
>
> Check the host logs (in xen /var/log/SMlog) to see which script is causing the
> failure.
>
> Thanks,
> jayapal
>
Check the host logs (in xen /var/log/SMlog) to see which script is causing the
failure.
Thanks,
jayapal
On 08-Aug-2013, at 4:43 PM, Daan Hoogland
wrote:
> I feel I am on a ghost hunt.
>
> On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 10:32 AM, Daan Hoogland
> wrote:
>> H,
>>
>> I noted that in some of the 4.1
One extra nuances is that after going from one version to another the
error message popped up while creation had actually succeeded.
Deleting the rule as a next step failed.
anyone been there, done that?
On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 1:13 PM, Daan Hoogland wrote:
> I feel I am on a ghost hunt.
>
> On T
I feel I am on a ghost hunt.
On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 10:32 AM, Daan Hoogland wrote:
> H,
>
> I noted that in some of the 4.1 versions I have been testing setting a
> firewall rule fails. This seems to be when a router is not fully
> initialized, is it?
>
> the stack trace seems to reflect this, bu
