Home » General » Support » *SOLVED* VE with veth, using MAC address it shouldn't be aware of
Re: VE with veth, using MAC address it shouldn't be aware of [message #10029 is a reply to message #10023] |
Mon, 05 February 2007 17:43 |
samlt
Messages: 8 Registered: February 2007
|
Junior Member |
|
|
sure
in the VE
ping 10.3.0.13
PING 10.3.0.13 (10.3.0.13) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 10.3.0.13: icmp_seq=1 ttl=63 time=1.43 ms
--- 10.3.0.13 ping statistics ---
1 packets transmitted, 1 received, 0% packet loss, time 0ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 1.430/1.430/1.430/0.000 ms
then ip neigh ls10.4.0.50 dev eth0 lladdr 00:18:51:b4:a6:85 nud reachable
in the VE0
on eth0tcpdump -i 1 src net 10 and dst net 10 -e
tcpdump: verbose output suppressed, use -v or -vv for full protocol decode
listening on eth0, link-type EN10MB (Ethernet), capture size 68 bytes
18:30:12.066702 00:30:1b:b6:f2:1c (oui Unknown) > 00:0f:66:83:45:8e (oui Unknown), ethertype IPv4 (0x0800), length 98: debnated > linksys: ICMP echo request, id 26134, seq 1, length 64
18:30:12.067175 00:0f:66:83:45:8e (oui Unknown) > 00:30:1b:b6:f2:1c (oui Unknown), ethertype IPv4 (0x0800), length 98: linksys > debnated: ICMP echo reply, id 26134, seq 1, length 64
18:30:17.065558 00:30:1b:b6:f2:1c (oui Unknown) > 00:0f:66:83:45:8e (oui Unknown), ethertype ARP (0x0806), length 42: arp who-has linksys tell 10.3.0.50
18:30:17.065866 00:0f:66:83:45:8e (oui Unknown) > 00:30:1b:b6:f2:1c (oui Unknown), ethertype ARP (0x0806), length 60: arp reply linksys is-at 00:0f:66:83:45:8e (oui Unknown)
on veth103.0tcpdump -i 3 src net 10 and dst net 10 -e
tcpdump: verbose output suppressed, use -v or -vv for full protocol decode
listening on veth103.0, link-type EN10MB (Ethernet), capture size 68 bytes
18:30:12.066645 00:18:51:ce:18:98 (oui Unknown) > Broadcast, ethertype ARP (0x0806), length 42: arp who-has 10.4.0.50 tell debnated
18:30:12.066671 00:18:51:b4:a6:85 (oui Unknown) > 00:18:51:ce:18:98 (oui Unknown), ethertype ARP (0x0806), length 42: arp reply 10.4.0.50 is-at 00:18:51:b4:a6:85 (oui Unknown)
18:30:12.066677 00:30:1b:b6:f2:1c (oui Unknown) > 00:0f:66:83:45:8e (oui Unknown), ethertype IPv4 (0x0800), length 98: debnated > linksys: ICMP echo request, id 26134, seq 1, length 64
18:30:12.067191 00:18:51:b4:a6:85 (oui Unknown) > 00:18:51:ce:18:98 (oui Unknown), ethertype IPv4 (0x0800), length 98: linksys > debnated: ICMP echo reply, id 26134, seq 1, length 64
18:30:17.065571 00:18:51:b4:a6:85 (oui Unknown) > 00:18:51:ce:18:98 (oui Unknown), ethertype ARP (0x0806), length 42: arp who-has debnated tell 10.4.0.50
18:30:17.065599 00:18:51:ce:18:98 (oui Unknown) > 00:18:51:b4:a6:85 (oui Unknown), ethertype ARP (0x0806), length 42: arp reply debnated is-at 00:18:51:ce:18:98 (oui Unknown)
ip neigh ls
10.4.0.52 dev veth103.0 lladdr 00:18:51:ce:18:98 REACHABLE
10.3.0.13 dev eth0 lladdr 00:0f:66:83:45:8e REACHABLE
|
|
|
|
|
*SOLVED* VE with veth, using MAC address it shouldn't be aware of
By: samlt on Sun, 04 February 2007 10:02
|
|
|
Re: VE with veth, using MAC address it shouldn't be aware of
|
|
|
Re: VE with veth, using MAC address it shouldn't be aware of
By: samlt on Mon, 05 February 2007 16:02
|
|
|
Re: VE with veth, using MAC address it shouldn't be aware of
|
|
|
Re: VE with veth, using MAC address it shouldn't be aware of
By: samlt on Mon, 05 February 2007 17:43
|
|
|
Re: VE with veth, using MAC address it shouldn't be aware of
|
|
|
Re: VE with veth, using MAC address it shouldn't be aware of
By: samlt on Tue, 06 February 2007 11:44
|
|
|
Re: VE with veth, using MAC address it shouldn't be aware of
By: samlt on Thu, 08 February 2007 18:33
|
|
|
Re: VE with veth, using MAC address it shouldn't be aware of
|
|
|
Re: VE with veth, using MAC address it shouldn't be aware of
By: samlt on Fri, 09 February 2007 16:20
|
|
|
Re: VE with veth, using MAC address it shouldn't be aware of
|
|
|
Re: VE with veth, using MAC address it shouldn't be aware of
By: samlt on Fri, 09 February 2007 18:41
|
|
|
Re: VE with veth, using MAC address it shouldn't be aware of
|
|
|
Re: VE with veth, using MAC address it shouldn't be aware of
By: samlt on Sat, 10 February 2007 01:31
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sat Nov 16 22:34:14 GMT 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.02973 seconds
|