Search Mailing List Archives


Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by: Reverse Sort
Limit to: All This Week Last Week This Month Last Month
Select Date Range     through    

[mininet-discuss] hwintf - Connecting the physical network

Bob Lantz rlantz at cs.stanford.edu
Sat Jan 12 16:30:23 PST 2013


It looks like you don't haven't determined how you want your network to work or how to configure it correctly.

Why on earth are eth2 and eth3 in the root namespace?

Why does eth2 have a 10.0.0.100 address? Is that a valid address on your LAN?

Why doesn't eth3 have an IP address? Is it attached to a switch?

Looks bad so far - I'd suggest some serious re-thinking and some more background research so that you have a clear understanding of what you are trying to do.


On Jan 12, 2013, at 2:23 PM, Ramon Fontes <ramonreisfontes at gmail.com> wrote:

> Looks!
> 
> eth2      Link encap:Ethernet  HWaddr 08:00:27:7c:9f:24
>           inet addr:10.0.0.100  Bcast:10.255.255.255  Mask:255.0.0.0
>           inet6 addr: fe80::a00:27ff:fe7c:9f24/64 Scope:Link
>           UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST  MTU:1500  Metric:1
>           RX packets:408 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
>           TX packets:400 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
>           collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000
>           RX bytes:42845 (42.8 KB)  TX bytes:46156 (46.1 KB)
> 
> eth3      Link encap:Ethernet  HWaddr 08:00:27:06:47:7d
>           inet6 addr: fe80::a00:27ff:fe06:477d/64 Scope:Link
>           UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST  MTU:1500  Metric:1
>           RX packets:21 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
>           TX packets:12 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
>           collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000
>           RX bytes:2006 (2.0 KB)  TX bytes:936 (936.0 B)
> 
> lo        Link encap:Local Loopback
>           inet addr:127.0.0.1  Mask:255.0.0.0
>           inet6 addr: ::1/128 Scope:Host
>           UP LOOPBACK RUNNING  MTU:16436  Metric:1
>           RX packets:73 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
>           TX packets:73 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
>           collisions:0 txqueuelen:0
>           RX bytes:5114 (5.1 KB)  TX bytes:5114 (5.1 KB)
> 
> s1-eth1   Link encap:Ethernet  HWaddr 36:f0:e4:47:cd:fb
>           inet6 addr: fe80::34f0:e4ff:fe47:cdfb/64 Scope:Link
>           UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST  MTU:1500  Metric:1
>           RX packets:5 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
>           TX packets:9 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
>           collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000
>           RX bytes:398 (398.0 B)  TX bytes:778 (778.0 B)
> 
> s1-eth2   Link encap:Ethernet  HWaddr 6a:df:c7:68:01:7b
>           inet6 addr: fe80::68df:c7ff:fe68:17b/64 Scope:Link
>           UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST  MTU:1500  Metric:1
>           RX packets:5 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
>           TX packets:10 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
>           collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000
>           RX bytes:398 (398.0 B)  TX bytes:856 (856.0 B)
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> mininet> net
> c0
> s1 lo:  s1-eth1:h1-eth0 s1-eth2:h2-eth0 eth3:
> h1 h1-eth0:s1-eth1
> h2 h2-eth0:s1-eth2
> 
> h1 ping to h2
> h2 ping to h1
> 
> but h1 and h2 doesn´t pings to my physical interface.
> 
> 
> 2013/1/12 Ramon Fontes <ramonreisfontes at gmail.com>
> It also took into account that the eth3 interface was just a virtual port on the switch, as with the doors s1-eth0, eth1-s1 ... I put the eth2 interface on the same network switch, but not get success in communication. A physical port that receives the message seems request, but the virtual host does not respond to reply.
> 
> 
> 2013/1/12 Ramon Fontes <ramonreisfontes at gmail.com>
> t also took into account that the size eth3
> 
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.stanford.edu/pipermail/mininet-discuss/attachments/20130112/5995a8f8/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the mininet-discuss mailing list