Re: default route on other subnet

[Pierre-Philipp Braun <pbraun%wda-fr.org@localhost>]

Manuel Bouyer <bouyer <at> antioche.eu.org> writes:
> On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 01:07:59AM +0100, Pierre-Philipp Braun wrote:
> > Once the procedure from the FAQ is applied, beside the fact it doesn't
> > work, those messages start to appear on the console.  I'm actually only
> > running the installer/kernel outside sysinst but I guess playing with
> > the routes should work anyways.
> > 
> > fe:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff tried to overwrite permanent arp info for <dom0_ip>
> > 
> > XEN microkernel and tools are version 3.2, with a 2.6.26 linux dom0.
> > fe:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff is vif's mac address on the dom0 side.  In fact, all
> > vifs have that same mac address, bridged or routed.  I assume that's
> > normal.
> 
> I guess it's really linux-specific. NetBSD has a different mac address for
> each vif in the dom0.
> 
> > What maybe isn't, is the ability for the guest to see its dom0
> > sided mac address instead of its own.
> 
> but then it's an issue with the network setup on the dom0 side.

Hi,

back to that matter.  In brief, I'm stuck with non working statics routes with a
netbsd guest on a XEN4 and linux dom0 setup.

When I say that the guest is able to see it's dom0 sided mac address, I don't
mean that ifconfig prints it.  ifconfig shows the correct one, e.g.
00:16:3e:0d:d1:67.  But the error message quotes the mac address that all guests
share on dom0's side: fe:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff.

I'm not sure using a fake mac address (fe:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff) for guests' network
interfaces is linux dom0 specific.  I would rather assume that behavior come
from xen tools' network scripts, and that NetBSD's version of xen tools is
modified to handle things in a better way.  Duh, well, I can't see any
modification for that in pkgsrc/sysutils/xentools41/patches/ either, so I guess
that's linux specific in the end: linux and netbsd may handle xen network
scripts' differently.

So is it that dom0 network behaviour that prevents the netbsd guests from using
static routes?  If so what should I do?  Submit a bug, ask for a feature
request, or simply fix the network scripts myself? (setting up the right mac
addresses shouldn't be so hard)

For the record, here's what I do,
  ifconfig xennet0 <GUEST_IP> netmask 255.255.255.255 up
  route add -host <DOM0_IP> -link xennet0 -iface
  ping -c1 DOM0_IP
(no response)
note. I've also tryed -link xennet0:GW_MAC_ADDRESS as David Young suggested
and after a while (one minute or so) I start getting those lines repeatedly:
  fe:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff tried to overwrite permanent arp info for <DOM0_IP>

Pierre-Philipp