tech-net archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

Re: rump oddity



On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 06:45:56AM +0700, Robert Elz wrote:
>     Date:        Fri, 12 May 2017 17:25:15 +0100
>     From:        Patrick Welche <prlw1%cam.ac.uk@localhost>
>     Message-ID:  <20170512162515.GB14949@quartz>
> 
>   | The puzzle is: while sitting at 192.168.1.2, why can I ping 192.168.2.2
>   | but not 192.168.2.1?
> 
> I suspect you may be missing (in the export RUMP_SERVER=$sock_gw block)
> something equivalent to
> 	rump.sysctl -w net.inet.ip.forwarding=1
> (add -q if you like.)  (I don't know if there is a rump.sysctl, but there
> must be a mechanism to allow that to be done...)
> 
> And while the little diagram you drew might be a logical descr of what
> you're configuring, I think a more accurate one would be:
> 
> #
> #    ===================================================================
> #           |                        |                         |
> #           |           +---------------------------+          |
> #  int 192.168.1.2      + 192.168.1.1  192.168.2.1  +     ext 192.168.2.2
> #                       |            gw             |
> #                       +---------------------------+
> 
> gw would need to be configured with shmif0 & shmif1 to accurately
> model the original diagram.   Not that this should really matter
> to the test you tried.

Thank you - that was what I was missing! (Implementation not matching diagram)

Re the ip.forwarding - I was hit by the POLS: it seems to default to 1,
at least the experiment attached prints 1, which was unexpected...

Cheers,

Patrick

Attachment: tworoute.sh
Description: Bourne shell script



Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index