Re: Not firewall, but what?

[Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx>]

Jussi Hirvi wrote:
> On 11.5.2010 3.40, Gordon Messmer wrote:
>> Routing policy is definitely required for a multi-homed system such as
>> Jussi presented, but NAT is totally superfluous.  It adds an extra layer
>> of complexity that makes the system more difficult to diagnose and
>> configure, and contributes nothing of value in return.
> 
> Funny, this morning I came to the same conclusion after some googling. A 
> xen box with two bridges should be considered normal, and it should not 
> break anything inside or outside the box.
> 
> There are good instructions on the net for installing 2 virtual bridges 
> on a xen box. But I have found no mention of this specific dual-bridge 
> problem I have: that ip traffic goes in ok through any physical nic to 
> the dom0 or domUs, but all replies are routed to only one nic (the 
> default gateway). (I verified this with tcpdump.)

That's not xen or bridge related.  Unless you do policy-based routing, packets 
always follow the destination route regardless of where the input was received. 
  That's a feature, not a bug.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
    lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos