[Lxc-users] network problem with lxc

[Canhua]

Finally I find vmware do support multiple mac on a single interface.
What I missed is setting promiscuous mode for that interface on vmware
virtual switch. Additionally, what I use is vmware esx.

On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 11:41 AM, Canhua <dreameration at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 11:25 AM, Stéphane Graber <stgraber at ubuntu.com> wrote:
>> On 08/22/2011 11:13 PM, Canhua wrote:
>>> hi, one additional info: I use lxc on a vmware virtual machine. And I
>>> suspect that veth* virtual interface should be assigned mac address
>>> with vmware's mac prefix (00:50:56:*). But I don't know how to
>>> manually set mac address of the veth* interface.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 10:55 PM, Canhua<dreameration at gmail.com>  wrote:
>>>> hi
>>>>
>>>> I have a network problem with lxc. I use bridge and veth for the
>>>> network setup. Now I can connect to the containers from host system,
>>>> but can't from network outside. My various interfaces are as shown in
>>>> pastebin: http://pastebin.com/RqtyitG6. In those interfaces, eth1 is
>>>> irrelavant, and eth0 is the bridged physical interfaces, and those two
>>>> veth* are interface of two container.
>>>>
>>>> Any suggestions?
>>>>
>>>> Thank you.
>>>>
>>>> Best regards.
>>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Unfortunately VMWare doesn't allow multiple MAC addresses to come out of
>> one virtual network card. This is a problem for anyone doing briding
>> within a virtual machine.
>>
>> Some tricks exist to reconfigure the vswitch to allow multiple mac
>> addresses though last I checked it involved making it a hub which is far
>> from desirable in most cases.
>>
>> The two other way around the limitation that I know of are:
>>  1) Route a subnet to your VM and then re-distribute these for your
>> containers
>>  2) Add one virtual network card to your VM for each container you want
>> to have inside it. Then directly assign each of these network interfaces
>> to a container using the "phys" network type in lxc.
>>
>> Hope it helps!
>>
>
> Thank you so much. The second solution sounds well. I don't quite
> understand the first one, does it mean to use the host as a NAT
> gateway for containers ?
>