In article <55ae6ce7fe2cbdba1514f1072281c006.squirrel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
James B. Byrne <byrnejb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I have been looking at this problem on and off for a considerable
> period. Given my lack of knowledge I have been unable to resolve this
> quickly and in consequence it has been constantly shoved to the
> background as other issues arise.
>
> Here is the situation:
>
> An ASCII art diagram might help, or might not.
>
> <pre>
>
> kvmh1g1 eth0/192.168.51.1
> eth1/aaa.bbb.ccc.151 <-------------> |
> |
> kvmh1 br1/aaa.bbb.ccc.51 |
> |---> br0/192.168.51.1 |
> X |
> kvmh2 |---> br0/192.168.52.1 |
> br1/aaa.bbb.ccc.52 |
> |
> kvmh2g1 eth0/192.168.52.1 |
> eth1/aaa.bbb.ccc.251 <-------------> |
> |
> gateway eth1/aaa.bbb.ccc.1 <---------------> |
>
> </pre>
>
Why are you using two separate subnets, 192.168.51.0/24 and 192.168.52.0/24?
That is the core of your problem. You can't use a crossover cable between
different subnets; you would need a router. There may be an esoteric way,
but it's not a normal configuration.
But they don't need to be different subnets at all. Logically speaking, they
are the same subnet.
So give kvmh1:br0 192.168.51.1 and kvmh2:br0 192.168.51.2. Then they can
talk to each other easily, without doing anything special.
On the guests, give them 192.168.51.11 and 192.168.12 (for example).
I don't think they should use the same IP addresses as their hosts.
Cheers
Tony
--
Tony Mountifield
Work: tony@xxxxxxxxxxxxx - http://www.softins.co.uk
Play: tony@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx - http://tony.mountifield.org
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
