From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Dan Magenheimer" Subject: RE: [PATCH] example and default IP addresses Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 18:52:39 -0700 Message-ID: <20080117185239937.00000001968@djm-pc> References: <18319.30118.645434.899532@mariner.uk.xensource.com> Reply-To: "dan.magenheimer@oracle.com" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: <18319.30118.645434.899532@mariner.uk.xensource.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: Ian Jackson , Keir Fraser Cc: "xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org Hi Keir -- Per the below discussion, could you revert the change to network-nat in the new cset 16739? Thanks, Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com > [mailto:xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com]On Behalf Of Ian Jackson > Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 8:35 AM > To: dan.magenheimer@oracle.com > Cc: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com > Subject: RE: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] example and default IP addresses > = > = > Dan Magenheimer writes ("RE: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] example and = > default IP addresses"): > > In the patch to network-nat, I see that you are replacing = > the 10.0.0.0/16 > > usage with 192.0.2.0/24. Actually, vif-nat has a dependency on it > > being 10.0.0.0/8(!), at least if more than 256 domains are = > launched (not > > necessarily simultaneously, just sequentially created and = > destroyed). > > In vif-nat ip_from_dom, IP's are created as 10.x.y.z for = > vifw.z, where > > x*256+y=3D=3Dw. > = > Firstly, I think it's important to note that network-nat and vif-nat > are pretty ropey. Anyone who is using them will almost certainly have > had to adjust them to local conditions anyway. For example, these > scripts attempt to find and edit your local dhcp server configuration > file ! > = > > I'm not sure what the right answer is, but 192.0.2.0/24 definitely > > doesn't have enough bits. And regardless of the answer, = > vif-nat will > > need to be patched also. > = > Having said that, I think you're right. vif-nat does indeed have to > use 10/8 for static hosts for the reason you give. Although really I > think this is a poor approach. So my change to network-nat ought not > to be applied. > = > In practice many people using this code in any real setting are likely > to fall foul of address clashes anyway as it's very likely that they > have at least some use of 10/8 ... > = > Ian. > = > _______________________________________________ > Xen-devel mailing list > Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com > http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel >