On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 07:25:29PM -0400, bfields wrote: > On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 02:27:14PM +0100, Steven Whitehouse wrote: > > a packet thats supposedly from .129 except that its mac address is now > > 0:ff:1d:e9:b9:a3. So it looks like the .129 address might be configured > > on two different nodes, either that or there is something odd going on > > with bridging. > > Th mystery mac address 00:ff:1d:e9:b9:a3 of both vnet0 and vnet4. vnet0 > is the bridge, which has ip .1 on the host, and which is also the > interface that wireshark is being run on. The other two addresses are > the mac addresses of the (virtual) ethernet interfaces inside the two > kvm's, with ip's .129 and .130 respectively. So .130 is sending to the > expected mac address for .129, but responses from .130 are getting the > mac address of vnet0/vnet4. > > I'm running wireshark on the host on vnet0. Just out of curiosity, I > ran it on the host on vnet1 instead, and this time saw the first DLM > connection made from ip .1 and piglet2's mac address. Erp. Ok, I'll > experiment some more and look at the /sbin/ip output. Bah, yes, I clearly got the network configuration completely screwed up at some point--it must be trying to do some kind of NAT, though that clearly makes no sense. I'll get this untangled and then I think it should be OK.... --b. -- Linux-cluster mailing list Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
