andrzej zaborowski writes ("Re: [Qemu-devel] Making qemu use 10.0.3.x not
10.0.2.x"):
> Right, but this happens so rarely (and there are no obvious symptoms
> when it happens)
The symptoms are generally that the host loses its network connection
to those parts of the outside w
Hi,
> Using a (once) randomly-chosen default greatly reduces the odds of
> that happening. Many many people foolishly choose 10.0.{0,1,2,3}.x.
> Many fewer choose (say) 172.30.206.x. So the fixed qemu default
> should be 172.30.206.x, or some other range also chosen at random.
A few years bac
On 06/02/2008, Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> andrzej zaborowski writes ("Re: [Qemu-devel] Making qemu use 10.0.3.x not
> 10.0.2.x"):
> > This rfc talks about organisations and networks that are real, not
> > about the network inside qemu which doesn&#x
Warner Losh writes ("Re: [Qemu-devel] Making qemu use 10.0.3.x not 10.0.2.x"):
> I think that the suggestion is that qemu picks, one time, a new
> default. This new default would be selected at random, and would be
> the same on all new versions of qemu.
Yes.
> I don'
- Message d'origine
> De : Asheesh Laroia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> À : Asheesh Laroia on [qemu-devel]
> Envoyé le : Mardi, 5 Février 2008, 23h24mn 42s
> Objet : Re: [Qemu-devel] Making qemu use 10.0.3.x not 10.0.2.x
>
> On Tue, 5 Feb 2008, Jernej Simončič wrote
On Wednesday 06 February 2008, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> Paul Brook wrote:
> > > > but make
> > > > it configurable on the command line. That way, there are no
> > > > surprises ever. The rare people like me with an issue can just pass
> > > > a command-line parameter in.
> > >
> > > The point I was
Paul Brook wrote:
> > > but make
> > > it configurable on the command line. That way, there are no surprises
> > > ever. The rare people like me with an issue can just pass a command-line
> > > parameter in.
> >
> > The point I was trying to make is that qemu could easily arbitrate the
> > guest
On Tue, 5 Feb 2008, Jernej Simončič wrote:
On Tuesday, February 5, 2008, 22:34:04, Asheesh Laroia wrote:
I agree with this - guesswork and invisible options can be confusing.
That's why I suggest what I think is the simplest solution: Just let
this be overridable on the command line.
Isn't
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ian Jackson wrote:
> So while this setup is being made configurable, I think it would
> probably be best for qemu's range to be changed to a random range.
The customizable subnet is obviously the preferred choice, but if I had to
choose a subnet I'd c
On Tuesday, February 5, 2008, 22:34:04, Asheesh Laroia wrote:
> I agree with this - guesswork and invisible options can be confusing.
> That's why I suggest what I think is the simplest solution: Just let this
> be overridable on the command line.
Isn't the user-net IP irrelevant to the outside?
On Tue, 5 Feb 2008, Paul Brook wrote:
but make it configurable on the command line. That way, there are no
surprises ever. The rare people like me with an issue can just pass a
command-line parameter in.
The point I was trying to make is that qemu could easily arbitrate the
guest network b
> > but make
> > it configurable on the command line. That way, there are no surprises
> > ever. The rare people like me with an issue can just pass a command-line
> > parameter in.
>
> The point I was trying to make is that qemu could easily arbitrate the
> guest network based on how the host is
Asheesh Laroia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Feb 2008, Ben Taylor wrote:
>
> > It seems to me that there is a corner case where the local host has a
> > 10.0.2.x or 10.0.x.x address which would cause a qemu guest problems
> > that has a 10.0.2.15 address (for -net user only).
>
I think in VBox the Slirp IP address can be changed. I didn't take
that part to my patch:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2007-10/msg00470.html
but it should be easy to add.
Currently all NICs share the same subnet.
On 05/02/2008, Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andreas Schwab writes ("Re: [Qemu-devel] Making qemu use 10.0.3.x not
> 10.0.2.x"):
> > Samuel Thibault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Mmm, actually, shouldn't qemu use a more "privat
On Tue, 5 Feb 2008, Ben Taylor wrote:
It seems to me that there is a corner case where the local host has a
10.0.2.x or 10.0.x.x address which would cause a qemu guest problems
that has a 10.0.2.15 address (for -net user only).
That's right - that's the issue that I faced.
I think the defau
Warner Losh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: Andreas Färber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Making qemu use 10.0.3.x not 10.0.2.x
> Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 13:58:28 +0100
>
> >
> > Am 05.02.2008 um 12:30 schrieb Ian Jackson:
> >
Warner Losh wrote:
From: Andreas Färber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Making qemu use 10.0.3.x not 10.0.2.x
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 13:58:28 +0100
Am 05.02.2008 um 12:30 schrieb Ian Jackson:
I don't believe that 10.0.2.0/24 was chosen randomly :-). It would be
From: Andreas Färber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Making qemu use 10.0.3.x not 10.0.2.x
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 13:58:28 +0100
>
> Am 05.02.2008 um 12:30 schrieb Ian Jackson:
>
> > I don't believe that 10.0.2.0/24 was chosen randomly :-). It woul
Am 05.02.2008 um 12:30 schrieb Ian Jackson:
I don't believe that 10.0.2.0/24 was chosen randomly :-). It would be
better for qemu's default range to be a randomly chosen one.
Please don't randomly choose a default subnet; knowing that QEMU uses
10.0.2.x allows to adapt to this. If however
Andreas Schwab writes ("Re: [Qemu-devel] Making qemu use 10.0.3.x not
10.0.2.x"):
> Samuel Thibault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Mmm, actually, shouldn't qemu use a more "private" network like a
> > RFC1918 172.16.0.0/12 network?
>
> In whi
Andreas Schwab, le Tue 05 Feb 2008 11:32:30 +0100, a écrit :
> Samuel Thibault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Mmm, actually, shouldn't qemu use a more "private" network like a
> > RFC1918 172.16.0.0/12 network?
>
> In which way is 172.16.0.0/12 more "private" than 10.0.0.0/8?
Precisely thanks
Samuel Thibault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Mmm, actually, shouldn't qemu use a more "private" network like a
> RFC1918 172.16.0.0/12 network?
In which way is 172.16.0.0/12 more "private" than 10.0.0.0/8?
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
SuSE Linux Products GmbH, Maxf
Hi,
On Mon, 4 Feb 2008, Asheesh Laroia wrote:
> Booting that resulted in a virtual machine that, as I had hoped, used
> 10.0.3.15 and could therefore successfully talk to my 10.0.2.x IPs on
> the LAN. I've attached a 'cvs diff' against HEAD that results from the
> above command.
And the next
Mmm, actually, shouldn't qemu use a more "private" network like a
RFC1918 172.16.0.0/12 network?
(see http://www.ucam.org/cam-grin/)
Samuel
You can always do what I do --- run openvpn between my QEMU sessions and set
up private networks that way ;)
On Feb 4, 2008 4:24 PM, Asheesh Laroia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm running qemu (really, KVM) in a LAN that uses 10.0.2.x as the IP
> address block for workstations. So naturally whe
I'm running qemu (really, KVM) in a LAN that uses 10.0.2.x as the IP
address block for workstations. So naturally when I booted a guest, it
couldn't access machines inside the LAN.
I tried the simplest thing that could possibly work:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/dnlds/qemu/qemu $ replace 10.0.
27 matches
Mail list logo
