New answers tagged

1

My bad. I didn't notice i was using --internal. Self-explanatory!


1

After getting an overwhelming number of responses on SF... not!?!, I did my own research the figured it out. This is how I did it. Configuration -SSH to Host A and update /etc/network/interfaces as below: auto lo iface lo inet loopback iface eth1 inet manual auto vmbr1 iface vmbr1 inet static address 10.0.2.99 netmask 255.255.255.0 ...


0

00:50:56 is a VMware MAC address. If ESX and this FreeBSD system is a VM, you must enable promiscuous mode on the port group that VM is connected to on both its ports. Though tcpdump on the VM should still show it in that case, it'd just be dropped at the ESX level. Post the output of 'ifconfig bridge0' and 'ifconfig bridge0 addr'.


0

I found a neat working solution here myself, sharing it for people with similar problems. A bridge was what I needed after all; and you can manipulate the behaviour pretty easily using ebtables. To make sure that the bridge does not forward packets, all I needed to do was change the ebtables "forward" policy to "drop". This makes it so that packets coming ...


0

Try this sysctl: net.bridge.bridge-nf-call-arptables=0 net.bridge.bridge-nf-call-ip6tables=0 net.bridge.bridge-nf-call-iptables=0 You need your bridge working as a "switch" without any routing and NATing. And there is no need to set "net.ipv4.conf.all.forwarding" unless you have NATed virtual networtks too. Standard libvirt iptables rules are working well ...


1

I think you mean this: eth0 connected to one network which has 192.168.0.0/24 eth1 connected to another network which also has 192.168.0.0/24 The network on one side is a different broadcast domain to the network on the other side Your PC to have the same IP address (eg: 192.168.0.1/24) in both networks Is that right? That's not the correct way to setup ...



Top 50 recent answers are included