|
On 10/30/2013 09:14 PM, Dan Sa wrote:
1) PLEASE stop top-posting new random information and guesses at solutions to the top of your old messages. You are quickly creating a cascade of text that is so large and rambling that nobody will have the ambition to unscramble it and make a reply. It is generally accepted good etiquette to post responses to earlier messages in-line with the original, so that the flow of the conversation can be easily followed by someone reading just the last message. (If there is no "flow" to the conversation, then something more fundamental has gone wrong.) 2) If you've now realized (as I told you in my first response) that you need to run a system instance of dhcpd or dnsmasq to service dhcp for the vlan of your guests, then what you have is a networking problem, not a virtualization problem. There are tutorials for setting up dnsmasq in various places on the web, or you can simply read the comments in /etc/dnsmasq.conf to figure out how to make it listen on just a specific interface, and how to tell it what addresses to serve for that interface. See below for more comments.
*All* of the above is just random data, which says nothing. Please try to spend more time figuring out what you are trying to do and what has gone wrong before just pasting random bits into a message to a mailing list. Remember that the people reading the messages on this list are doing it for free, and they also have day jobs they need to attend to. The less excess garbage is in a message, the less time they have to use up sifting through it for useful information.
The above list of bridges connected to vlan interfaces implies that, for some reason, you are putting each interface of each guest on a separate vlan. Is this really what you think you want to do? Why? How will these guests connect to the rest of the network? Unless you have a requirement to isolate each guest entirely from every other guest and force each guest's traffic to travel through a different path out to the rest of the network, then I think you've misunderstood when/why vlans should be used. It is much more common to just setup a single network that many (or even all) guests will attach to, and generally you don't need a vlan tag to do this. (an earlier comment you made implying that a *host* bridge attached to a host vlan interface *was actually the guest interface* makes me believe you are confused about the function of each bit and how they all fit together. I think it would be useful for you to step back from all of this and just explain how you want your guests to connect to the rest of the network. Do you have a specific requirement for each to be connected to a separate vlan on the physical network? Or do they just need to be connected "somehow"? Do they need to be prevented from communicating with each other, or was this just a side effect of a mistaken network configuration?
Fedora 17 is > 1 year old, and thus no longer gets any updates, not even security updates. You need to upgrade to a newer release of Fedora (F20 is already in beta, so that may be a good choice)
Likewise, 0.9.11 is very old. *Many* improvements have been made since then, which is another good reason to upgrade your OS.
The above is obviously *not* the output of brctl on the same host as the above-listed guest, since that guest connects to a bridge called "guest1-lan", which isn't even in the brctl output at all.
Again, WHY do you need a separate vlan for each guest? I think you may be confused.
1) stop top-posting. 2) either explain why you need each guest on a separate vlan, or give up on that idea and just connect all guest interfaces to a single network (or possible 2 networks - on lan and one wan, which you seen to have some requirement for). 3) if you really do require the guests to each be on a separate vlan, and you don't have any other host on the network that already serves dhcp on those vlans, then read /etc/dnsmasq.conf to learn how to configure it.
|
-- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list