From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nivedita Singhvi Subject: Re: network-bridge script reworked Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 16:45:30 -0700 Message-ID: <4356DA9A.2040101@us.ibm.com> References: <1129759215.30682.18.camel@pluto.linsolutions.com> <20051019224058.GA13970@leeni.uk.xensource.com> <1129762773.30682.23.camel@pluto.linsolutions.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1129762773.30682.23.camel@pluto.linsolutions.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: Ted Kaczmarek Cc: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, Ewan Mellor List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org Ted Kaczmarek wrote: >>We have seen the old script get things into a state whereby the machine's >>routing tables claim to be going through peth0 rather than eth0. At the very >>least, if this happened with two Xen machines on the network, then one would >>complain about packets coming from the other, and I have observed this behaviour >>directly. >> >>Can anyone claim to have seen the error message with only one Xen machine on >>the network? >> >>Ewan. > > Nope, I have repeatedly tested and have only seen this when the > domU's/DomO's share a broadcast domain on the peth interface. Been > running test bed where eth0 is disconnected and xen-br0 is enslaved to > it for almost two days now. Not a single instance of this message. Ted, are you saying only one machine, or was that multiple machines? Because we have not seen it with a single machine on the network (ok, would someone from the "big shop" correct me if they have?). Jerone has been trying to recreate it right now and hasn't seen it so far. I believe it is the scenario that Ewan describes above. thanks, Nivedita