cloudstack-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From John Skinner <john.skin...@appcore.com>
Subject Re: CS 4.3.2 virtual router issue
Date Thu, 26 Feb 2015 21:24:35 GMT
This happens with all routers in that specific zone, the other zone is ok.
Messages and cloudstack logs on the router do not offer any insight. You
can see the results of ipassoc.sh in messages and that it is clearly
setting up postrouting rules for eth3 which should not exist. CloudStack
agent log on the host is useless per always, and the qemu log for the
routers just display the start command. Virsh dumpxml of the router does
show 4 interfaces for the router. I am trying to discover at what point the
VM thinks it needs to create that 4th interface. User VMs are being created
just fine, as well as the console proxy and secondary storage VMs for that
zone.

On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 2:29 PM, Somesh Naidu <Somesh.Naidu@citrix.com>
wrote:

> Strange, I haven't seen that happen before.
>
> Is this happening with all routers in the environment or only a specific
> one?
>
> If latter we might just try recreating it. If former, then probably have
> to look at /var/log/messages on the router.
>
> Somesh
> CloudPlatform Escalations
> Citrix Systems, Inc.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Skinner [mailto:john.skinner@appcore.com]
> Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 3:19 PM
> To: users@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: Re: CS 4.3.2 virtual router issue
>
> Yeah. As far as CloudStack is concerned, it has 3 NICs - the UI and the
> database confirms. The API call also only calls for 3 NICs. How this 4th
> NIC is getting created is a mystery. It has the same IP as the 3rd NIC, it
> doesn't make any sense.
>
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 2:16 PM, Somesh Naidu <Somesh.Naidu@citrix.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Did you check the entries in the nics table for that router? That might
> > give you some pointers.
> >
> > Somesh
> > CloudPlatform Escalations
> > Citrix Systems, Inc.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: John Skinner [mailto:john.skinner@appcore.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 10:59 AM
> > To: users@cloudstack.apache.org
> > Subject: CS 4.3.2 virtual router issue
> >
> > Running CloudStack 4.3.2 with advanced networking using Open vSwitch on
> > KVM. I am having an issue where my virtual router is coming up with 2
> > public interfaces when there should only be 1. CloudStack is only
> > requesting the 3 interfaces (private, control, and public) but the VM is
> > coming up with 4. The second public interface comes up with the same IP
> as
> > the first public interface. This obviously really breaks routing and ip
> > forwarding as the postrouting rules in iptables get created for the
> second
> > interface when the traffic is coming in on the 1st interface.
> >
> > Has any one seen anything like this? I can't figure out why it is getting
> > created with 2 public interfaces.
> >
>
>
>
> --
>
> *John Skinner*
>
> Senior Cloud Engineer - Ops Lead | Appcore
>
>
> Office +1.800.735.7104 | Direct +1.515.612.7783
>
> john.skinner@appcore.com  |  www.appcore.com
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> The information in this message is intended for the named recipients only.
> It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise
> protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
> hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking
> of any action in reliance on the contents of this message is strictly
> prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, do not print it or
> disseminate it or its contents. In such event, please notify the sender by
> return e-mail and delete the e-mail file immediately thereafter. Thank you.
>



-- 

*John Skinner*

Senior Cloud Engineer - Ops Lead | Appcore


Office +1.800.735.7104 | Direct +1.515.612.7783

john.skinner@appcore.com  |  www.appcore.com

----------------------------------------------------------------------

The information in this message is intended for the named recipients only.
It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise
protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking
of any action in reliance on the contents of this message is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, do not print it or
disseminate it or its contents. In such event, please notify the sender by
return e-mail and delete the e-mail file immediately thereafter. Thank you.

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message