On 11/10/2016 01:31 AM, Sadi wrote:
> Hello again,
>
> Looking at the primary host's syslog, the arptables command from xen/etc/scripts/colo-proxy-setup has failed.
>
> Here's the log:
>
> Nov  9 14:43:39 colop colop: /etc/xen/scripts/colo-proxy-setup: setup XENBUS_PATH=
> Nov  9 14:43:39 colop kernel: [  302.825788] u32 classifier
> Nov  9 14:43:39 colop kernel: [  302.825791]     Actions configured
> Nov  9 14:43:39 colop kernel: [  302.835407] Mirror/redirect action on
> Nov  9 14:43:39 colop kernel: [  302.919605] ip6_tables: (C) 2000-2006 Netfilter Core Team
> Nov  9 14:43:39 colop kernel: [  302.941511] arp_tables: (C) 2002 David S. Miller
> Nov  9 14:43:39 colop colop: /etc/xen/scripts/colo-proxy-setup: arptables -I INPUT -i eth1 -j MARK --set-mark 1 failed
> Nov  9 14:43:39 colop colop: /etc/xen/scripts/colo-proxy-setup: Writing /hotplug-status connected to xenstore.
> Nov  9 14:43:39 colop colop: /etc/xen/scripts/colo-proxy-setup: Successful colo-proxy-setup setup for vif2.0-emu. mode = primary  vifname: vif2.0-emu, index: 1, forwarddev: eth1.
>
> It's ok for the --set-mark argument to have value equal '1' , not a hex?

This log is very useful, we will investigate it.

Thanks
Wen Congyang

>
> The i got running the command is:
> root@colop:~# arptables -I INPUT -i eth1 -j MARK --set-mark 1
> Bad argument `1'
>
> Thanks, Sadi.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 6:53 PM, Sadi <sadijrp@gmail.com <mailto:sadijrp@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     Hi,
>
>     Apparently vif2.0-emu was already binded with br0 when "brctl addif br0 vif2.0-emu" failed.
>
>     root@colob-HP-Compaq-6005-Pro-MT-PC:~# brctl addif br0 vif2.0-emu
>     device vif2.0-emu is already a member of a bridge; can't enslave it to bridge br0.
>     root@colob-HP-Compaq-6005-Pro-MT-PC:~# brctl show
>     bridge name     bridge id               STP enabled     interfaces
>     br0             8000.001a3fc46255       no              eth0
>                                                             vif2.0
>                                                             vif2.0-emu
>     br1             8000.000000000000       no
>
>     About the iptables, it seems like SECCOLO target can't be recognised.
>
>     root@colob-HP-Compaq-6005-Pro-MT-PC:~# iptables -t mangle -D PREROUTING -m physdev --physdev-in vif2.0-emu -j SECCOLO --index 1
>     iptables: No chain/target/match by that name.
>
>     Here is my active modules matching colo:
>
>     root@colob-HP-Compaq-6005-Pro-MT-PC:~# lsmod | grep -i colo
>     xt_SECCOLO             16384  1
>     nf_conntrack_colo      16384  2 xt_SECCOLO
>     x_tables               36864  8 xt_physdev,ip6table_mangle,ip_tables,xt_SECCOLO,xt_tcpudp,iptable_filter,iptable_mangle,ip6_tables
>     nf_conntrack          106496  4 xt_SECCOLO,nf_nat,nf_conntrack_colo,nf_conntrack_ipv4
>
>     So i was looking in the iptables and this really looks like the source of the problem.
>
>     Sadi.
>

>     On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 5:57 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com <mailto:konrad.wilk@oracle.com>> wrote:
>
>         > entered forwarding state
>         > Nov  7 18:10:30 colob NetworkManager[907]: <info>  (vif2.0-emu): enslaved
>         > to br0
>         > Nov  7 18:10:30 colob root: /etc/xen/scripts/colo-proxy-setup: brctl addif
>         > br0 vif2.0-emu failed
>
>
>         How come this failed?
>
>         > Nov  7 18:10:30 colob root: /etc/xen/scripts/colo-proxy-setup: iptables -t
>         > mangle -D PREROUTING -m physdev --physdev-in vif2.0-emu -j SECCOLO --index
>         > 1 failed
>
>         Ah b/c of this. Are there any errors of what exactly failed?
>
>
>
>
>     --
>     Sadi.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Sadi.