From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tim Durack Subject: Re: Network stalling Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 21:59:41 -0400 Message-ID: <9e246b4d05083118592b086a59@mail.gmail.com> References: <9e246b4d05083110174e4bc87@mail.gmail.com> <43160597.2050202@us.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0022202929==" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <43160597.2050202@us.ibm.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Mime-version: 1.0 Sender: xen-users-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-users-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Nivedita Singhvi , xen-users@lists.xensource.com, xen-devel@lists.xensource.com List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org --===============0022202929== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_1617_2807720.1125539981229" ------=_Part_1617_2807720.1125539981229 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Do you mean the network scripts are broken, or the handling of interfaces i= n=20 Dom0 is causing issues with a routed setup? I'm configuring everything manually. The fact that I have to build gre=20 tunnels to make things work as expected suggests their is something broken= =20 in the netfront/netback code to me. Tim:> On 8/31/05, Nivedita Singhvi wrote: >=20 > Tim Durack wrote: > > Guess I should add my experiences: > > > > Running unstable (approx. two weeks old now.) > > > > Dom0 vif1.0 -> guest eth0: icmp works, ssh fails, tcp seems to have=20 > checksum > > issues. Building gre tunnels over this works around the problem. I=20 > thought > > maybe this was device driver related (tg3), so I tried bcm5700 with the= =20 > same > > result. >=20 > > Tried a similar setup with a machine with e100 driver. This time I get= =20 > udp > > checksum errors instead of tcp, so dns fails but ssh works ;-( A gre=20 > tunnel > > is my current workaround. > > > > I say checksum issues because ethereal is complaining about transport= =20 > layer > > checksums when I do a capture to diagnose the problem. > > > > Tried various combinations of disabling tx/rx/sg/to with ethtool in bot= h > > Dom0 and guest, to no avail. Also tried hacking the driver code to > > permanently disable offloads. Tried looking for the difference between > > stable/unstable netfront and netback, but didnt get far. > > > > A bridged setup works, ip address on Dom0 veth0, Dom0 vif0.0 bridged=20 > with > > Dom0 vif1.0. Real pain in the neck to firewall though, due to all the > > interfaces. Never managed to get Masquerading to work in this setup, so= =20 > went > > back to a routed network with gre tunnels... > > > > I can try a more recent unstable if it might help, but I haven't seen= =20 > any > > evidence of anything having fixed this. Love to have a simple routed=20 > setup > > working. >=20 > Tim, it's very likely that your initial problem has been resolved > in unstable - Ian, Keir, et. al have put in quite a few fixes which > have closed most of the outstanding issues we had. I think there > are only a few remaining issues. However, currently routing is > broken in unstable, so you might want to hold off on testing current > unstable until that gets fixed. >=20 > thanks, > Nivedita > ------=_Part_1617_2807720.1125539981229 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Do you mean the network scripts are broken, or the handling of interfaces i= n Dom0 is causing issues with a routed setup?

I'm configuring everything manually. The fact that I have to build gre tunnels to make things work as expected suggests their is something broken in the netfront/netback code to me.

Tim:>

On 8/31/05, Nivedita Singhvi <= niv@us.ibm.com> wrote:
Tim Durack wrote:
> Guess I should add my experiences:
>
>= ; Running unstable (approx. two weeks old now.)
>
> Dom0 vif1.0= -> guest eth0: icmp works, ssh fails, tcp seems to have checksum
> issues. Building gre tunnels over this works around the problem. I tho= ught
> maybe this was device driver related (tg3), so I tried bcm5700= with the same
> result.

> Tried a similar setup with a mac= hine with e100 driver. This time I get udp
> checksum errors instead of tcp, so dns fails but ssh works ;-( A g= re tunnel
> is my current workaround.
>
> I say checksum = issues because ethereal is complaining about transport layer
> checks= ums when I do a capture to diagnose the problem.
>
> Tried various combinations of disabling tx/rx/sg/to with e= thtool in both
> Dom0 and guest, to no avail. Also tried hacking the = driver code to
> permanently disable offloads. Tried looking for the = difference between
> stable/unstable netfront and netback, but didnt get far.
>> A bridged setup works, ip address on Dom0 veth0, Dom0 vif0.0 bridged= with
> Dom0 vif1.0. Real pain in the neck to firewall though, due to= all the
> interfaces. Never managed to get Masquerading to work in this setu= p, so went
> back to a routed network with gre tunnels...
>
= > I can try a more recent unstable if it might help, but I haven't seen = any
> evidence of anything having fixed this. Love to have a simple rout= ed setup
> working.

Tim, it's very likely that your initial pr= oblem has been resolved
in unstable - Ian, Keir, et. al have put in quit= e a few fixes which
have closed most of the outstanding issues we had. I think there
are= only a few remaining issues. However, currently routing is
broken in un= stable, so you might want to hold off on testing current
unstable until = that gets fixed.

thanks,
Nivedita

------=_Part_1617_2807720.1125539981229-- --===============0022202929== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users --===============0022202929==--