On Sun, 2019-01-27 at 21:50 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote:
> On 1/27/19 7:48 AM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> > Same here. To eliminate some variables, I turned off my dnsmasq
> > service, disabled it and rebooted. The problem is still there: for a
> > few moments the guests are network-reachable, then they aren't. They
> > may come back, they may not. Or one does and the other doesn't. It's
> > completely unpredictable. If I could even figure out which component is
> > causing the problem I could BZ it, but nothing stands out.
> >
> > I'll keep looking but I'm seriously considering a complete system
> > reinstall, something I haven't done in about 5 years, in case some
> > cruft from earlier iterations of Fedora is somehow lurking in the
> > shadows.
>
> Well, I can't say that I've ever seen "intermittent" problems like that caused by SW. But
> since the host and guest are on the same HW it seems to be the only thing that makes sense.
>
> The only thing that comes to mind is that communication on a LAN with IPv4 takes place
> based on the MAC address and ARP request/response. If somehow guest obtained the same MAC
> address for their interfaces one may see odd behavior.
Apparently not. The link/ether field is different for all of them:
$ ip addr
1: lo: <LOOPBACK,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 65536 qdisc noqueue state UNKNOWN group default qlen 1000
link/loopback 00:00:00:00:00:00 brd 00:00:00:00:00:00
inet 127.0.0.1/8 scope host lo
valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
inet6 ::1/128 scope host
valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
2: enp3s0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc fq state UP group default qlen 1000
link/ether d4:3d:7e:f4:1b:08 brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
inet 192.168.1.73/24 brd 192.168.1.255 scope global noprefixroute enp3s0
valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
inet6 fe80::d63d:7eff:fef4:1b08/64 scope link noprefixroute
valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
3: virbr0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc noqueue state UP group default qlen 1000
link/ether 52:54:00:8b:88:60 brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
inet 192.168.122.1/24 brd 192.168.122.255 scope global virbr0
valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
4: virbr0-nic: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST> mtu 1500 qdisc fq master virbr0 state DOWN group default qlen 1000
link/ether 52:54:00:8b:88:60 brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
5: vnet0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc fq master virbr0 state UNKNOWN group default qlen 1000
link/ether fe:54:00:b0:20:88 brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
inet6 fe80::fc54:ff:feb0:2088/64 scope link
valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
6: vnet1: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc fq master virbr0 state UNKNOWN group default qlen 1000
link/ether fe:54:00:1d:55:89 brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
inet6 fe80::fc54:ff:fe1d:5589/64 scope link
valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
Another thing: the gateway address (192.168.122.1) is pingable from
both sides, i.e. from the guest and the host, but packets are not being
forwarded. net.ipv4.ip_forward is 1 (on), so possibly the problem is at
a lower level with the actual bridge. Not sure how I can check that,
but note that ip6 packets do go back and forth so it seems unlikely.
The firewall rules are:
$ sudo firewall-cmd --info-zone=public
public (active)
target: default
icmp-block-inversion: no
interfaces: enp3s0 p3p1 virbr0 virbr0-nic
sources:
services: dhcp dhcpv6-client dns mdns mountd nfs rpc-bind rsyncd samba ssh
ports: 32410/udp 32413/tcp 32412/tcp 8200/tcp 1900/udp 32400/tcp 32469/tcp 32414/tcp 24800/tcp
protocols:
masquerade: no
forward-ports:
source-ports: 24800/tcp
icmp-blocks:
rich rules:
Thanks for your patience in looking at this Ed. Don't feel pressured to
keep responding :-)
poc
_______________________________________________
users mailing list -- users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
