Re: VMware and bridged networking
"Ralf G. R. Bergs" <rabe@RWTH-Aachen.DE> writes:
> On 12 Aug 2000 11:14:50 +0200, Ramin Motakef wrote:
>
> [...]
> >is the routing on the host/guest machines correct?
>
> I'm pretty sure it IS correct.
>
> >Example:
> > LAN --------------+------------- 192.168.1.*
> > | real eth adapter 192.168.1.1
> > +-+-+
> > host OS | |
> > +-+-+ 192.168.2.1
> > | virt. eth adapter
> > +-+-+ 192.168.2.2
> > guest OS | |
> > +---+
> >
> >On the Guest you need to set the default route to eth0:
> >$ route add default eth0
>
> This was the default after I had installed Debian, but it didn't work. So I
> tried something like "route add default gw <ipaddr>," where <ipaddr> was the
> IP address of my host's real ethernet adapter (which I could already ping at
> that time) or the real gateway in my LAN.
Have you been able to ping this IP after this change?
> Anyway, for communicating with machines on my LAN I shouldn't need any
> default route, cause all machines are in the same subnet, and a route to
> this subnet thru the eth0 interface is created automagically by the kernel.
But how should the hosts on the LAN know about the guest?
> >On the LAN you have to tell the machines to route packets for
> >192.168.2.* through the host (Assuming they are Windows):
> >C:\> route -p add 192.168.2.0 mask 255.255.255.0 192.168.1.1
>
> This assumes that I put the guest OS into a different subnet from my LAN
> machines. Is this necessary, or why are you assuming this?
Yes, I think this is necessary, unless the host is acting as a bridge
and allows arp-request to pass from the real interface to the virtual.
> >If you use the same subnet for host/guest and lan, the host has to do
> >bridging of IP-Packets between the two interfaces, i have no idea how
> >to do this on NT.....
>
> Do I understand you correctly that the approach of putting the guest VM into
> a different subnet and creating a proxy route entry(?) to this net is
> KNOWN/has been verified to work? Is there anyone here who got a setup
> similar to mine working?
Is there any reason for not using "Bridged" networking?
> Thanks.
>
ramin
Reply to: