From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: John McCullough Subject: Re: Problems with network-route/vif-route scripts Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 18:08:52 -0800 Message-ID: <20061030020852.GA609@cs.ucsd.edu> References: <20061026161750.GB28762@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20061026161750.GB28762@redhat.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: "Daniel P. Berrange" Cc: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 05:17:50PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > I've been attempting to get the network-route/vif-route scripts running > instead of using the traditional bridging setup, but running into some > puzzelling issues. Are you using an hvm or pv guest? Routing under hvm requires a bit of hacking. Qemu uses /dev/tap* devices rather than the vif*.* devices and is by default invoked in a bridging mode (the default /etc/xen/qemu-ifup script that is invoked by qemu-dm on launch simply adds the tap device to the bridge xenbr0). I've found that turning the vif script executed by xend into a no-op, changing the qemu-ifup script to invoke a vif-like script with the correct vif and XENBUS_PATH defined, and modifying image.py to invoke qemu-dm without the bridging. There is a patch for image.py in http://lists.xensource.com/archives/html/xen-users/2006-09/msg00976.html To the list -- is there a chance that the qemu-dm network device interaction will follow the pv naming scheme anytime soon? -John McCullough