[rhelv6-beta-list] Problem with 2 interfaces on the same network with rh6 beta2
Gianluca Cecchi
gianluca.cecchi at gmail.com
Tue Oct 5 16:25:40 UTC 2010
Thanks for reply.
The bonding is on prduction lan with eth0 and eth1 and its ip is 10.4.5.39 :
bond0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddrxxxxxx
inet addr:10.4.5.39 Bcast:10.4.5.255 Mask:255.255.255.0
UP BROADCAST RUNNING MASTER MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1
RX packets:66005 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
TX packets:89720 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
collisions:0 txqueuelen:0
RX bytes:52326919 (49.9 MiB) TX bytes:6198077 (5.9 MiB)
[root at testrh6 ~]# cat /proc/net/bonding/bond0
Ethernet Channel Bonding Driver: v3.5.0 (November 4, 2008)
Bonding Mode: adaptive load balancing
Primary Slave: None
Currently Active Slave: eth0
MII Status: up
MII Polling Interval (ms): 100
Up Delay (ms): 200
Down Delay (ms): 0
Slave Interface: eth0
MII Status: up
Link Failure Count: 0
Permanent HW addr:
Slave Interface: eth1
MII Status: up
Link Failure Count: 0
Permanent HW addr:
instead the problem is on eth4 and eth5 that are two separate adapters
I want to use with iSCSI, as I'm successfully doing with rh el 5.5
[root at testrh6 ~]# ifconfig eth4
eth4 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr xxxxxxx
inet addr:10.10.100.176 Bcast:10.10.100.255 Mask:255.255.255.0
UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:9000 Metric:1
RX packets:5380306 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
TX packets:1827713 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000
RX bytes:47104666668 (43.8 GiB) TX bytes:132902358 (126.7 MiB)
Interrupt:40 Memory:dc800000-dcffffff
[root at testrh6 ~]# ifconfig eth5
eth5 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr yyyyyyy
inet addr:10.10.100.177 Bcast:10.10.100.255 Mask:255.255.255.0
UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:9000 Metric:1
RX packets:301 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
TX packets:113 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000
RX bytes:876592 (856.0 KiB) TX bytes:8846 (8.6 KiB)
Interrupt:50 Memory:dd800000-ddffffff
So no conflict in my opinion....
[root at testrh6 ~]# netstat -rn
Kernel IP routing table
Destination Gateway Genmask Flags MSS Window irtt Iface
10.4.5.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 bond0
10.10.100.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth4
10.10.100.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth5
0.0.0.0 10.4.5.250 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 bond0
It seems the first one appearing in netstat wins .....
same routing table in rh el 5.5 works instead....
no ipv6 in both rh el 5.5 and rh el 6 beta2
On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 6:13 PM, Schmidt, Bryan
<Bryan.Schmidt at travelport.com> wrote:
> What module options are you using with the bonding driver? A copy of `cat /proc/net/bonding/bond0` would be good. If bonded active-backup (mode=1) then the bond takes on the MAC of the first slave added to it, and moreover sticks to a NIC until it fails.
>
> -Bryan
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rhelv6-beta-list-bounces at redhat.com [mailto:rhelv6-beta-list-bounces at redhat.com] On Behalf Of Eric.Conrad at emulex.com
> Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2010 9:52 AM
> To: rhelv6-beta-list at redhat.com
> Subject: Re: [rhelv6-beta-list] Problem with 2 interfaces on the same network with rh6 beta2
>
> Is it just me, or are you sharing IP addresses with the two interfaces? If I'm reading this right, you are having a network collision. Try changing the IP address of one of the eths, and see if that helps.
>
> Eric
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rhelv6-beta-list-bounces at redhat.com [mailto:rhelv6-beta-list-bounces at redhat.com] On Behalf Of Gianluca Cecchi
> Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2010 7:30 AM
> To: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 (Santiago) Beta releases discussion mailing-list
> Subject: Re: [rhelv6-beta-list] Problem with 2 interfaces on the same network with rh6 beta2
>
> Hello,
> any hint on this?
> I continue to be able to ping only from one interface....
>
> [root at testrh6 ~]# netstat -rn
> Kernel IP routing table
> Destination Gateway Genmask Flags MSS Window irtt Iface
> 10.4.5.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 bond0
> 10.10.100.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth4
> 10.10.100.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth5
> 0.0.0.0 10.4.5.250 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 bond0
>
> In this way I'm able to ping -I eth4 but not eth5...
> If I run "ifdown eth4" I'm then be able to ping through eth5.
> If I then run "ifup eth4" I continue to be able to ping through eth5
> but no more from eth4
> (only with another "ifdown eth5" command...)
>
> Tried also to set
> net.ipv4.conf.xxx.arp_announce=1
> net.ipv4.conf.xxx.arp_ignore=1
> for all interfaces and also default but no way....
>
> Thanks, in advance,
>
> Gianluca
>
> On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 9:56 AM, Pasi Kärkkäinen <pasik at iki.fi> wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 03, 2010 at 01:13:24PM +0200, Gianluca Cecchi wrote:
>>> On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 12:16 PM, Pasi Kärkkäinen <pasik at iki.fi> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> > Maybe you need to disable the arp replies on other interfaces..
>>> >
>>> > as a default Linux replies to arp request on *any* interface,
>>> > ie. on a wrong interface on this case..
>>> >
>>> > -- Pasi
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>> can you tell what are the parameters to change, please?
>>>
>>> I tried set to 1 the parameters for eth4 and eth5 taht are the cards involved...
>>>
>>> net.ipv4.conf.ethx.arp_announce and net.ipv4.conf.ethx.arp_ignore
>>>
>>> so that I have this config:
>>>
>>> [root at testrh6 ~]# sysctl -a|grep arp | egrep "eth4|eth5|all" | sort
>>> net.ipv4.conf.all.arp_accept = 0
>>> net.ipv4.conf.all.arp_announce = 0
>>> net.ipv4.conf.all.arp_filter = 0
>>> net.ipv4.conf.all.arp_ignore = 0
>>> net.ipv4.conf.all.arp_notify = 0
>>> net.ipv4.conf.all.proxy_arp = 0
>>> net.ipv4.conf.eth4.arp_accept = 0
>>> net.ipv4.conf.eth4.arp_announce = 1
>>> net.ipv4.conf.eth4.arp_filter = 0
>>> net.ipv4.conf.eth4.arp_ignore = 1
>>> net.ipv4.conf.eth4.arp_notify = 0
>>> net.ipv4.conf.eth4.proxy_arp = 0
>>> net.ipv4.conf.eth5.arp_accept = 0
>>> net.ipv4.conf.eth5.arp_announce = 1
>>> net.ipv4.conf.eth5.arp_filter = 0
>>> net.ipv4.conf.eth5.arp_ignore = 1
>>> net.ipv4.conf.eth5.arp_notify = 0
>>> net.ipv4.conf.eth5.proxy_arp = 0
>>>
>>> Should this be ok? because it is not working (while in 5.5 it works..)
>>>
>>
>> Yeah those are the settings to play with.
>> Sorry I haven't tried this with RHEL6 yet..
>>
>> Maybe use tcpdump or wireshark and check if the arp stuff is working as expected?
>> ie. arp replies go out on the correct ethernet interface..
>>
>> -- Pasi
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rhelv6-beta-list mailing list
>> rhelv6-beta-list at redhat.com
>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv6-beta-list
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rhelv6-beta-list mailing list
> rhelv6-beta-list at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv6-beta-list
>
> _______________________________________________
> rhelv6-beta-list mailing list
> rhelv6-beta-list at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv6-beta-list
>
> If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail message, please notify the sender
> and delete all copies immediately. The sender believes this message and any attachments
> were sent free of any virus, worm, Trojan horse, and other forms of malicious code.
> This message and its attachments could have been infected during transmission. The
> recipient opens any attachments at the recipient's own risk, and in so doing, the
> recipient accepts full responsibility for such actions and agrees to take protective
> and remedial action relating to any malicious code. Travelport is not liable for any
> loss or damage arising from this message or its attachments.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rhelv6-beta-list mailing list
> rhelv6-beta-list at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv6-beta-list
More information about the rhelv6-beta-list
mailing list