FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Debian > Debian User

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 04-09-2012, 07:08 PM
Bob Proulx
 
Default Bonded network: "No route to host" between slaves

Seyyed Mohtadin Hashemi wrote:
> I have a problem that is driving me crazy. I have setup a micro cluster
> with different programs that can interact with each other, the setup is as
> follows:
>
> <server>--bond0 (eth1)-->desktop1 (IP:10.1.1.200)
> |
> bond0 (eth2)
> v
> desktop2 (IP:10.1.1.190)

I may be wrong here but isn't what you want bridging not bonding? It
seems that way to me. You are wanting to bridge two networks
together. Bonding is when you share bandwidth between two network
routes enabling either to be offline and communication still proceed.
Bonding is used for performance, redundancy and high availability but
uses redundant routes. You don't have redundant routes here.

> bond0 consist of eth1 and eth2 connected with following config:
> allow-hotplug bond0
> iface bond0 inet static
> address 10.1.1.1
> netmask 255.255.255.0
> network 10.1.1.0
> broadcast 10.1.1.255
> slaves eth1 eth2
> bond-mode broadcast
> bond-miimon 100
> bond-downdelay 200
> bond-updelay 200
>
> <server> has no problem connecting to both desktops, and vice versa, both
> there i can not get a connection between the two desktops (iptables has
> been disabled). I can't even ping from one desktop to the other, gives
> error "Destination Host Unreachable" (ping works fine when i ping from
> desktop to the server).

Right. You want bridging, not bonding. At least that is what I think
you want from reading the above description. I am going to proceed
with a suggestion based upon that assumption.

Instead of the above try this configuration:

iface eth0 inet manual
iface eth1 inet manual
auto br0
iface br0 inet static
address 10.1.1.1
netmask 255.255.255.0
bridge_ports eth0
bridge_stp off
bridge_fd 0
bridge_maxwait 0

You may need to install bridge-utils first to get the tools:

# apt-get install bridge-utils

Bob
 
Old 04-09-2012, 08:38 PM
Seyyed Mohtadin Hashemi
 
Default Bonded network: "No route to host" between slaves

*To clarify what i want: I want to setup the connection so that server is able to "speak" to both desktops (and vice versa) AND the desktops should be able to "speak" with each other. *


You may be right that it is a bridge i need, i'm not that experienced in setting up networks. I will try the bridge suggestion as soon as i wake up tomorrow (server is not allowed external SSH yet and i don't have the server at home).


I have a question though: The server is connected to the internet via eth0 (it gets IP from external DHCP server), will i be able to connect to the br0 from the eth0? (br0 is going to consist of eth1 and eth2) interfaces will then look:


iface eth1 inet manual
iface eth2 inet manual

auto br0
iface br0 inet static
* * bridge_ports eth1 eth2
* * address 10.1.1.1
* * broadcast 10.1.1.255
* * netmask 255.255.255.0


* * gateway 10.1.1.1* * bridge_stp off
* * bridge_fd 0
* * bridge_maxwait 0
Is it possible to bridge with a third NIC (eth3)? I'm just asking because i had planned to connect a third computer to the server.


thanks,*
Seyyed Mohtadin Hashemi wrote:

> I have a problem that is driving me crazy. I have setup a micro cluster
> with different programs that can interact with each other, the setup is as> follows:

>


> <server>--bond0 (eth1)-->desktop1 (IP:10.1.1.200)> |

> bond0 (eth2)
> v> desktop2 (IP:10.1.1.190)


I may be wrong here but isn't what you want bridging not bonding? It
seems that way to me. You are wanting to bridge two networkstogether. Bonding is when you share bandwidth between two network
routes enabling either to be offline and communication still proceed.Bonding is used for performance, redundancy and high availability but
uses redundant routes. You don't have redundant routes here.
> bond0 consist of eth1 and eth2 connected with following config:
> allow-hotplug bond0> iface bond0 inet static> address 10.1.1.1
> netmask 255.255.255.0> network 10.1.1.0> broadcast 10.1.1.255> slaves eth1 eth2
> bond-mode broadcast> bond-miimon 100> bond-downdelay 200
> bond-updelay 200> > <server> has no problem connecting to both desktops, and vice versa, both
> there i can not get a connection between the two desktops (iptables has> been disabled). I can't even ping from one desktop to the other, gives
> error "Destination Host Unreachable" (ping works fine when i ping from> desktop to the server).

Right. You want bridging, not bonding. At least that is what I thinkyou want from reading the above description. I am going to proceed
with a suggestion based upon that assumption.
Instead of the above try this configuration:

iface eth0 inet manualiface eth1 inet manualauto br0
iface br0 inet static address 10.1.1.1 netmask 255.255.255.0 bridge_ports eth0
bridge_stp off bridge_fd 0 bridge_maxwait 0

You may need to install bridge-utils first to get the tools:
# apt-get install bridge-utils

Bob
 
Old 04-09-2012, 08:56 PM
Bob Proulx
 
Default Bonded network: "No route to host" between slaves

Seyyed Mohtadin Hashemi wrote:
> I have a question though: The server is connected to the internet via eth0
> (it gets IP from external DHCP server), will i be able to connect to the
> br0 from the eth0?

Yes. You didn't show that part of your configuration. I expect it
will have a default gateway?

Also, you included all of netmask, network, and broadcast lines in
your configuration. Only the netmask is needed and the other two will
be calculated from it. That is better because the machine will
compute the correct numbers whereas including them redundantly open a
mistake in calculation. Also less is simpler and simpler is better.

> (br0 is going to consist of eth1 and eth2) interfaces
> will then look:
>
> iface eth1 inet manual
> iface eth2 inet manual
>
> auto br0
> iface br0 inet static
> bridge_ports eth1 eth2
> address 10.1.1.1
> broadcast 10.1.1.255
> netmask 255.255.255.0
> gateway 10.1.1.1
> bridge_stp off
> bridge_fd 0
> bridge_maxwait 0

Again, please remove the broadcast line since it is redundant over the
netmask line and is calculated from it.

Here you have added a gateway that was not present before. If you
are accessing the internet through eth0 as you said above them you
should have a gateway for that interface eth0 and not here. Remove
the gateway from the br0 configuration. I think something like this
where I will use 'dhcp' for the eth0 configuration but it would of
course be whatever you need for that.

allow-hotplug eth0
iface eth0 inet dhcp

iface eth1 inet manual
iface eth2 inet manual

auto br0
iface br0 inet static
bridge_ports eth1 eth2
address 10.1.1.1
netmask 255.255.255.0
bridge_stp off
bridge_fd 0
bridge_maxwait 0

> Is it possible to bridge with a third NIC (eth3)?

Yes. If I recall correctly you can bridge up to 255 devices.

> I'm just asking because i had planned to connect a third computer to
> the server.

This is possible but not optimal nor convenient.

You are using a separate network interface card for each computer?
Why? It be simpler to use a network switch. Instead of using a
point to point interface for each computer I suggest that you use a
network switch for the entire subnet. That is much simpler and easier
and is the normal thing to do.

Is there some reason that you are choosing not to use a switch that
you haven't told us about?

Bob
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 03:41 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org