Re: VMware and bridged networking
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.
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.
>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?
>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?
Thanks.
--
Sign the EU petition against SPAM: L I N U X .~.
http://www.politik-digital.de/spam/ The Choice /V\
of a GNU /( )\
Generation ^^-^^
Reply to: