From owner-freebsd-emulation Sun Mar 25 7:21:58 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-emulation@freebsd.org Received: from mail5.nc.rr.com (fe5.southeast.rr.com [24.93.67.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22C3937B718 for ; Sun, 25 Mar 2001 07:21:55 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from bts@babbleon.org) Received: from babbleon.org ([66.26.250.181]) by mail5.nc.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.537.53); Sun, 25 Mar 2001 10:21:49 -0500 Message-ID: <3ABE0CE0.4C00C668@babbleon.org> Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2001 10:21:05 -0500 From: The Babbler Organization: None to speak of X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.12 i386) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Randy Bush Cc: freebsd-emulation@freebsd.org Subject: Re: vm References: <200103240357.f2O3v0c27492@ptavv.es.net> <3ABD9782.21A8BED1@babbleon.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-emulation@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Randy Bush wrote: > > o from vmware's web page, it appears that one may be able to use the > original windoze install partition if one buys the workstation version I don't have the express version, so I wouldn't be able to say. If true, this would render express pretty useless. My *hope* would be that it would run only a virtual drive as C: but you could install an existing partition as D:. This is the best way to go anyway in general. But of course I have no idea if that's true--I'd write vmware tech support to clarify, or download a trial version if they've got it. One thing I can tell you is that FreeBSD has pre-existing ports for vmware (meaning workstation) but not for vmware express, so you'd be a little more on your own in terms of getting it working. > o i kinda understand virtual machines in general, as they have not changed > much since i started using them in the late '60s when ibm invented them > (the manchester atlas machines actually predated ibm's > braggadocio by a number of years, but i did not use them). Ok . . . I wasn't 100% sure from your first post. Sorry if I sounded condesending. > but i have a suspicious nature, and we're talkin' windoze here. so excuse > me if i am not confident that winfax pro is gonna get to a laptop winmodem > through vmware under freebsd. if i does, i will be impressed as well as > thankful. I guess I wasn't being clear. This definately will *not* work. The vmware virtual machine has the "vmware" virtual hardware; it can only get to a device if the host system can get to the device. For instance, when you are running vmware, your guest OS has a virtual "AMD PCNet" ethernet card no matter what your physical hardware card actually is. It has a soundblaster card regardless of your physical sound card. And so forth. It does seem to be the case that it gets your "real" IDE devices, unless mine is coincidentally the same as the vmware one, but the rest are specific vmware virtual devices. Some, like the CDROM controller, are entirely fictional (NECVMwar VMware IDE CD10). And VMware doesn't support unusual devices like CR-RWs, so I can't use mine from VMware. So if the host can't talk to it, the guest can't talk to it, either. The guest has no direct access to the physical hardware. Thus, if you have hardware which is supported only by Windows, then that would definately militate in favor of using Windows as the host rather than FreeBSD. The better approach is generally to avoid such hardware, but if you've got it and you want to use it, vmware isn't going to help any. > o i would REALLY like to > - start with a brand new windoze laptop > - squeeze or move the windoze partition, without damaging it (i have pqm) > - install freebsd -stable > - install vmware > - run windoze as the secondary os under vmware I'm not familiar with pqm, but that's the basic scenario that I empolyed for my Dell laptop, albiet using FIPS rather than pqm. More recently I used Partition Magic to do the same thing when I moved from Linux to FreeBSD. > o the list name seems to be freebsd-emulation, not freebsd-emulators. but > thanks for the pointer. Drat. Sorry about that. -- "Brian, the man from babble-on" bts@babbleon.org Brian T. Schellenberger http://www.babbleon.org Support http://www.eff.org. Support decss defendents. Support http://www.programming-freedom.org. Boycott amazon.com. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-emulation" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-emulation Sun Mar 25 7:44:25 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-emulation@freebsd.org Received: from mail7.nc.rr.com (mail7.southeast.rr.com [24.93.67.54]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B50137B719 for ; Sun, 25 Mar 2001 07:44:15 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from bts@babbleon.org) Received: from babbleon.org ([66.26.250.181]) by mail7.nc.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.537.53); Sun, 25 Mar 2001 10:44:14 -0500 Message-ID: <3ABE1223.F5FDD1CD@babbleon.org> Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2001 10:43:31 -0500 From: The Babbler Organization: None to speak of X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.12 i386) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-emulation@freebsd.org Subject: [Fwd: Re: VMware networking (was: Slooow VMware on RELENG_4 SMP)] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-emulation@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org I got the list name wrong the first time, so I'm trying this again. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: VMware networking (was: Slooow VMware on RELENG_4 SMP) Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2001 01:45:20 -0500 From: The Babbler Organization: None to speak of To: Julian Elischer , freebsd-emulation@freebsd.org,Brian.Dean@sas.com References: <20010324150145.A9587@tortugas.irbs.com> <3ABD6D4D.DC46FB87@babbleon.org> <3ABD8421.EC5438F9@elischer.org> Julian Elischer wrote: > > The Babbler wrote: > > > > I haven't tracked it down, but I am also getting a vmware message that > > claims that the root disk is mounted remotely, thoug this is not the > > case. I haven't noticed terribly performance problems, but I really > > haven't done anything with vmware but bring it up and try to ping. (I > > can't get the #@$! networking right for vmware under FreeBSD--I'm really > > seriously considering giving up & going back to Linux in fact.) > > I have had no (zero/nada/none/zilch) problems with routed networking.. > I've also seen others having no problems with bridged networking.. > > what are you trying to do? > > I use vmware-1.0.4 (I have a licence and don't really feel like paying > to upgrade) to run > 1/ win98 for turbotax > 2/ FreeBSD-current for kernel debugging. > > > > > -- > __--_|\ Julian Elischer > / \ julian@elischer.org > ( OZ ) World tour 2000-2001 > ---> X_.---._/ > v Well, I've tried a number of things (and posted about some of them before). For what it's worth, I am running vmware 2. (It was free for me [owing to the date when I purchased my vmware1 license], so it was an easy decision. Performance improvements for Win 98 were quite noticable.) I have vmware running a 192.168.242 network ("...242" for short), with ..242.2 being the vmware and ...242.1 being the vmnet1 node. I have another interface on the host, which varies. At home (which is what I'm trying to get working first), it's on a 192.158.147 network ("...147" for short). ep0 is ...147.4 and its gateway is ...147.1. I run a local nameserver on the host. All this is so that the guest O/Ss can use a simple static setup regardless of where the host is, since the host is a laptop and it isn't always in the same place or at the same address. The guest is configured with ...242.2 as its IP address, ...242.1 as its gateway, and ...242.1 as its nameserver. The primary guest of interest is Windows 98, though I briefly had a FreeBSD guest when I was running Linux and would hope to have a Linux guest how that I'm running FreeBSD, and perhaps a -CURRENT FreeBSD as well. So . . . . With the latest vmware2 port (2.0.3.799_1), which is supposed to "just work" by using netgraph, I can't even communicate from the guest to the host at all. Not even from ...242.1 to ...242.2 or vice versa. Actually, it's a little weirder than that. The *first* time I tried this after installing that port, it all worked beautifully. But after the next time I rebooted my host, it didn't work at all, and it never has since then either. So I reverted back to the previous vmare2 port (2.0.3.799). From there I can ping from the guest (...242.2) to the host vmware (...242.1) as well as to the host's "real" addr (...147.4), but I cannot access the host's gateway (...147.1). I *can* access the host's nameserver via ...242.1, so if from the guest I do something like "ping www.yahoo.com" then the numeric IP address to ping will be correctly resolved, but the packets won't actually get delivered. I tried solving this under 4.2-RELEASE by enabling bridging the in the kernel, but that broke my networking with my 3com PCMCIA card *completely*--my *host* was no longer able to reach its gateway, so obviously my guest couldn't either, and I was pretty much dead in the water. I have since solved *that* problem by upgrading to 4.3-BETA, where I can enable briding in the kernel, and the host networking works just great, but I still can't get the guest packets anyplace. However, I will be perfectly frank in confessing that I'm not at all clear on how bridging is really supposed to work here. It's built into the kenel, and sysctl shows that net.link.ether.bridge is 1, and I get messages about setting the interfaces into promiscuous mode, but the ep0 interface, if I do ifconfig, doesn't actually show itself as being in promiscuous mode. This could be the root of the problem, or it could be that the bridging is trying to set up too early, and PCMCIA intialization is realatively late. But I have tried using sysctl to turn the bridging off and back on, and that didn't fix anything. The bridging man page does talk about using bridging whilst enabling IP forwarding, which logically might be required since they are two separate networks, but I can't figure out how one combines the two concepts of bridging and IP forwarding or how to write the rules under such a circumstance. Also, the briding man page has a warning that having both interfaces have IP addresses is bad, so this might be why things are broken for me. So, having written gotten firewalls working for both Linux and FreeBSD for my real firewall machine, and having solved this problem under Linux with "IP Masquerading" (Linuxese for IP network address translation), I ditched the bridging (this was still with 4.2-RELEASE) and tried to write a zero-security mini-firewall isntead. I disabled bridging the kernel and enabled the IPFIREWALL and IPDIVERT along with the IPFIREWALL_DEFAULT_TO_ACCEPT option (since I'm not looking for security at this level). In then tried a wide variety of firewalls. First I tried the OPEN firewall, then the SIMPLE firewall with oif="ep0" onet="192.168.147.0" omask="255.255.255.0" oip="192.168.147.4" # set these to your inside interface network and netmask and ip iif="vmnet1" inet="192.168.242.0" imask="255.255.255.0" iip="192.168.242.1" I tried both of these with and without this: natd_enable="YES" natd_interface="ep0" and then my own custom firewall with this set of rules: oif="ep0" oparms=`/sbin/ifconfig ${oif} | /usr/bin/grep inet | /usr/bin/cut -f2,4,6 -d' '` oip=`/bin/echo "${oparms}" | cut -f1 -d' '` onet="${oip}" omask=`/bin/echo "${oparms}" | cut -f2 -d' '` obcast=`/bin/echo "${oparms}" | cut -f3 -d' '` iif="vmnet1" iparms=`/sbin/ifconfig ${iif} | /usr/bin/grep inet | /usr/bin/cut -f2,4,6 -d' '` iip=`/bin/echo "${iparms}" | cut -f1 -d' '` inet="${iip}" imask=`/bin/echo "${iparms}" | cut -f2 -d' '` ibcast=`/bin/echo "${iparms}" | cut -f3 -d' '` fwcmd=/sbin/ipfw ${fwcmd} -f flush # Use NAT to translate packets destined to or coming from the outside ${fwcmd} add divert natd all from ${inet}:${imask} to any via ${oif} # Allow all normal traffic--we are inside the real firewall ${fwcmd} add allow ip from any to any Now, under Linux I had all this working, with the guest set up in the same manner (indeed, I just brought the virtual disk over from Linux), and these rules in Linuxese. The above was my (incompetent, I fear) attempt to translate them into BSDish. In case anybody reading this is bilingual, here it is in the original language. This scripts works. extip="`/sbin/ifconfig eth0 | grep "inet addr" | awk '{print $2}' | sed -e 's/.*://'`" extint="eth0" intnet="192.168.242.1/24" intint="vmnet1" echo extip=$extip echo extint=$extint echo intnet=$intnet echo intint=$intint # The rest of this is lifted comments & all, from the masquarading howto. # MASQ timeouts # # 2 hrs timeout for TCP session timeouts # 10 sec timeout for traffic after the TCP/IP "FIN" packet is received # 60 sec timeout for UDP traffic (MASQ'ed ICQ users must enable a 30sec firewall # timeout in ICQ itself) # ipchains -M -S 7200 10 60 ipchains -F input ipchains -P input ACCEPT ipchains -F output ipchains -P output ACCEPT ############################################################################# # Forwarding, flush and set default policy of deny. Actually the default policy # is irrelevant because there is a catch all rule with deny and log. # ipchains -F forward ipchains -P forward DENY # Masquerade from local net on local interface to anywhere. # ipchains -A forward -i $extint -s $intnet -d 0.0.0.0/0 -j MASQ # catch all rule, all other forwarding is denied and logged. pity there is no # log option on the policy but this does the job instead. # ipchains -A forward -s 0.0.0.0/0 -d 0.0.0.0/0 -l -j REJECT -- "Brian, the man from babble-on" bts@babbleon.org Brian T. Schellenberger http://www.babbleon.org Support http://www.eff.org. Support decss defendents. Support http://www.programming-freedom.org. Boycott amazon.com. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-emulation" in the body of the message To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-emulation" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-emulation Mon Mar 26 13:36:27 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-emulation@freebsd.org Received: from dell.dannyland.org (dell.dannyland.org [64.81.36.13]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A13337B71D for ; Mon, 26 Mar 2001 13:36:22 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dannyman@toldme.com) Received: by dell.dannyland.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 3C12E5C41; Mon, 26 Mar 2001 13:36:44 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 13:36:44 -0800 From: dannyman To: freebsd-emulation@freebsd.org Subject: ViaVoice (Blackdown JRE) and getsid Message-ID: <20010326133644.A45348@dell.dannyland.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i X-Loop: djhoward@uiuc.edu X-URL: http://www.dannyland.org/~dannyman/ Sender: owner-freebsd-emulation@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org I've tried running ViaVoice. The install scripts are so severely broken that I just gave up over the weekend, as the java VM just allocates 80M and then sits there. I have the truss output back at home ... but today I was looking through my daily messages, and this popped up in the kernel log: > linux: syscall getsid is obsoleted or not implemented (pid=39641) > linux: syscall getsid is obsoleted or not implemented (pid=39693) > linux: syscall getsid is obsoleted or not implemented (pid=39823) > linux: syscall getsid is obsoleted or not implemented (pid=39897) > linux: syscall getsid is obsoleted or not implemented (pid=39936) Might this point at something to add (has been added) or something in our Linux emulation, or otherwise some clue that may lead me to get ViaVoice working? Thanks, -danny To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-emulation" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-emulation Mon Mar 26 19:39:40 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-emulation@freebsd.org Received: from mail5.nc.rr.com (fe5.southeast.rr.com [24.93.67.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9694F37B71A for ; Mon, 26 Mar 2001 19:39:32 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from bts@babbleon.org) Received: from babbleon.org ([66.26.250.181]) by mail5.nc.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.537.53); Mon, 26 Mar 2001 22:39:25 -0500 Message-ID: <3AC00B6A.54C2B0D7@babbleon.org> Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 22:39:22 -0500 From: The Babbler Organization: None to speak of X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.12 i386) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: scotty@klement.dstorm.net Cc: The Babbler , freebsd-emulation@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: VMware networking (was: Slooow VMware on RELENG_4 SMP) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-emulation@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org scotty@klement.dstorm.net wrote: > > I'm far from an expert on this subject, but maybe I can help? I'll type > the thoughts that come to mind, and see if it helps you... > > On Sun, 25 Mar 2001, The Babbler wrote: > > > Well, I've tried a number of things (and posted about some of them > > before). For what it's worth, I am running vmware 2. (It was free for > > me [owing to the date when I purchased my vmware1 license], so it was an > > easy decision. Performance improvements for Win 98 were quite > > noticable.) > > > > I have vmware running a 192.168.242 network ("...242" for short), with > > ..242.2 being the vmware and ...242.1 being the vmnet1 node. > > > > I have another interface on the host, which varies. At home (which is > > what I'm trying to get working first), it's on a 192.158.147 network > > ("...147" for short). ep0 is ...147.4 and its gateway is ...147.1. > > > > I run a local nameserver on the host. All this is so that the guest > > O/Ss can use a simple static setup regardless of where the host is, > > since the host is a laptop and it isn't always in the same place or at > > the same address. The guest is configured with ...242.2 as its IP > > address, ...242.1 as its gateway, and ...242.1 as its nameserver. > > So... just to verify... from the FreeBSD machine, you can type > "ifconfig -a" and see vmnet1 set as ...242.1? Yes? Yes. > This sounds > like you want to do a "routed network", rather than a bridged network. That could well be; I was not at all clear from reading the Handbook whether or not bridging covered this case. I have since had a friend who reported that it covered a similar case for him, but perhaps setting up routes is a more straightforward solution. But shouldn't the IPFIREWALL attempts work in the same way? > > In /etc/rc.conf, do you have 'gateway_enable="YES"' so that it will > route between interfaces? I've tried it both with and without, as detailed towards the bottom of the message. It's been enabled for the attempts to make the gateway work. > Do the other machines on your LAN have routes to access the ...242 subnet > by using your FreeBSD machine as their gateway? (either through a > central router/gateway that routes to your FreeBSD host, or by adding > routes to each machine individually) Otherwise, how will they know > that packets for ...242.2 need to be sent to ...147.4? I don't actually want anybody else to know about the "242" network; that's the whole point of it--to isolate it so that the other machine only know about the host and the guest sort of magically goes along for the ride. In some of the networks I hook up to, I'm only "entitled" to one DHCP address, and I can't do any routing/naming/whatever at the network level. > Or, are you using NAT? That's probably what I want to do. I've tried with and without. > > The primary guest of interest is Windows 98, though I briefly had a > > FreeBSD guest when I was running Linux and would hope to have a Linux > > guest how that I'm running FreeBSD, and perhaps a -CURRENT FreeBSD as > > well. > > I'm running 2.0.3.799_1 with a Win98se guest, no problems. I've done it > both as a routed network, and as a bridged network. Other than the fact > that Windows file sharing doesn't work on a routed network, it works fine. > (Flaw in the design of MS Network protocol) Hmmm . . . I was able to get this working under Linux, using "IP masquarading" (which is NATD, I believe). > > So . . . . > > With the latest vmware2 port (2.0.3.799_1), which is supposed to "just > > work" by using netgraph, I can't even communicate from the guest to the > > host at all. Not even from ...242.1 to ...242.2 or vice versa. > > Actually, it's a little weirder than that. The *first* time I tried > > this after installing that port, it all worked beautifully. But after > > the next time I rebooted my host, it didn't work at all, and it never > > has since then either. > > Strange. The scripts that should be starting these things are in > /usr/local/etc/rc.d/ called "rtc.sh" "linprocfs.sh" "vmware.sh". They > should be running when you boot. Do you see them running? Are there > any errors? Well, I've backed up to 2.0.03.799, so it's hard to say for sure without re-switching ports (which I will do shortly, but you had so many questions I wanted to try answering what I could at one fell swoop). With the port I'm currenlty running I don't have a "linprocfs.sh" but I do have the other two. But I'm not sure if I should have linprocfs.sh with the port I have or not. I'll send followup mail when I have a change to try re-installing that port. > Since you're running a laptop, I have a feeling that maybe these scripts > are running before the pccard code finds your NIC? If thats the problem, > you could probably fix the problem by removing them from > /usr/local/etc/rc.d, and finding a way to run them from /etc/pccard_ether > or perhaps even better would be to have /etc/pccard.conf call a different > script, which in turn calls pccard_ether, followed by the vmware scripts. That can be a problem. I tried re-running vmware.sh by hand, but it was not obvious to me that other scripts would be involved, so I didn't try running them by hand. > If you're using Netgraph briding, you don't want to use > the ...242 subnet for your interfaces... Your guest will be bridged > to appear on the same LAN, so you'll want to pick an IP in the same > subnet as your LAN. (i.e. ...147.x) This is a problem, you see. It means that my guest is on a different network depending on whether I'm at home or at work. To make that work I either have to use DHCP for the guest (which seems to confuse the DHCP server at work for some reason--I never really pursued it since it's dicey whether my employer really *wants* me to do this in first place, and anyway it was easily worked around under Linux); or I have to go in and modify the networking for the guest every time I go back and forth; as it happens, I take it into work every day, so that gets really tired really fast--especially since Windows must reboot to change networking parameters, and rebooting vmware is slow. > On my system (in bridged mode), my vmnet1 is set to "192.168.0.1", which > isn't a valid IP in any of my subnets, but I believe the vmnet1 > IP is irrelevant in a bridged environment. In the Windows guest, I have > an IP that's allocated from my LAN's subnet. (In fact, I'm using DHCP > to assign it, just like all the other IPs on the LAN) Maybe I should try that approach again. I'm not even sure that the DHCP approach is problematic. > And, of course, you don't want to tell vmware that you're in "bridged > mode". Instead, you tell it "host-only" and FreeBSD does the bridging. That much I understood. It's about the only aspect of the entire process I understood, but I did manage to get that much from the notes with the port. > > So I reverted back to the previous vmare2 port (2.0.3.799). From there > > I can ping from the guest (...242.2) to the host vmware (...242.1) as > > well as to the host's "real" addr (...147.4), but I cannot access the > > host's gateway (...147.1). I *can* access the host's nameserver via > > ...242.1, so if from the guest I do something like "ping www.yahoo.com" > > then the numeric IP address to ping will be correctly resolved, but the > > packets won't actually get delivered. > > Possibly its sending the packets out, but your internet gateway doesn't > know that it needs to forward packets to your guest through your FreeBSD > box. Also possible that you don't have gateway_enable set in > /etc/rc.conf. That sounds like a strong possibility. I'd hope that NATD would solve that. > > I tried solving this under 4.2-RELEASE by enabling bridging the in the > > kernel, but that broke my networking with my 3com PCMCIA card > > *completely*--my *host* was no longer able to reach its gateway, so > > obviously my guest couldn't either, and I was pretty much dead in the > > water. I have since solved *that* problem by upgrading to 4.3-BETA, > > where I can enable briding in the kernel, and the host networking works > > just great, but I still can't get the guest packets anyplace. However, > > I will be perfectly frank in confessing that I'm not at all clear on how > > bridging is really supposed to work here. > > I've tried FreeBSD's experimental bridging support, and while it more or > less worked, it was buggy. You should use the Netgraph bridging, it > works a lot better. > > In vmware 2.0.3.799_1 it will automatically load the netgraph bridging > module as FreeBSD boots. Therefore, you want to disable all bridging > in your kernel if you're going to use it. Otherwise there may be > conflicts. (At least, thats what worked for me) I'll double-check on that. > > It's built into the kenel, and sysctl shows that net.link.ether.bridge > > is 1, and I get messages about setting the interfaces into promiscuous > > mode, but the ep0 interface, if I do ifconfig, doesn't actually show > > itself as being in promiscuous mode. This could be the root of the > > problem, or it could be that the bridging is trying to set up too early, > > and PCMCIA intialization is realatively late. But I have tried using > > sysctl to turn the bridging off and back on, and that didn't fix > > anything. > > > > The bridging man page does talk about using bridging whilst enabling IP > > forwarding, which logically might be required since they are two > > separate networks, but I can't figure out how one combines the two > > concepts of bridging and IP forwarding or how to write the rules under > > such a circumstance. Also, the briding man page has a warning that > > having both interfaces have IP addresses is bad, so this might be why > > things are broken for me. > > The whole idea of briding is to make it all look like one, big, network. > Using IP forwarding doesn't really make sense here, does it? However, > turning it on and off should be simple enough to try. > > Well... maybe some of that will help....? :) Thanks. It at least gives me a couple of things to try. -- "Brian, the man from babble-on" bts@babbleon.org Brian T. Schellenberger http://www.babbleon.org Support http://www.eff.org. Support decss defendents. Support http://www.programming-freedom.org. Boycott amazon.com. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-emulation" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-emulation Mon Mar 26 20:41:13 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-emulation@freebsd.org Received: from mail7.nc.rr.com (fe7.southeast.rr.com [24.93.67.54]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D4CF37B71A for ; Mon, 26 Mar 2001 20:41:08 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from bts@babbleon.org) Received: from babbleon.org ([66.26.250.181]) by mail7.nc.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.537.53); Mon, 26 Mar 2001 23:41:05 -0500 Message-ID: <3AC019E0.F1CF1B1E@babbleon.org> Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 23:41:04 -0500 From: The Babbler Organization: None to speak of X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.12 i386) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: scotty@klement.dstorm.net, The Babbler , freebsd-emulation@freebsd.org Subject: Re: VMware networking (was: Slooow VMware on RELENG_4 SMP) References: <3AC00B6A.54C2B0D7@babbleon.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-emulation@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Thanks for your help . . . I remembered why, in particular, I was trying to avoid having the guest be just another node on the network, but rather wanted to do NATD or whatever. It came to me when I was making my guest into a regular DHCP client (which I'm trying anyway just to see if I can get BRIDGE or NETGRAPH working that way). It's because I have a VPN tunnel into work under FreeBSD and I want for the guest packets to be able to hitch a ride there if they are going there, or to go out of eth0. In short, I really want for the vmware guest to somehow go through whatever routing I have set up by the host, automatically. Since the exact same addresses are sometimes served up to the host via DHCP and other times set up as a ppp over ethernet, it's confusing. However, I could solve this by making the VMware use DHCP all the time, I suppose, and let the host run a DHCP server just to serve the info to the guest. The static subnet approach seemed simpler. I did *not* have the VPN stuff working under Linux (I could never get it working there, in fact; it was a prime motivation to swtich to FreeBSD) even for the host, so I never got far enough to have an issue with VPN and the guest; the setup was anticipating this as a problem, though. With kernel BRIDGE support enabled and vmware set to DHCP, the vmware Win98se guest gets a DHCP address of 169.252.97.50. I have no idea where that comes from Having tried that without success, I've now deinstalled the old vmware2 port (vmware2-2.0.3.799) and reinstalled the new one (vmware2-2.0.3.799_1). There is still no "linprocfs.sh" in my /usr/local/etc/rc.d directory. However, a "df" shows that I do, in fact, have a linprocfs running, for whatever reason. I'm just guessing here, but I bet that rtc.sh is for the RTC device, which works ok but I've been regularly disabling when vmware came up anyway, to avoid pegging the CPU at 100%. Will it matter for networking? I'll build & install a kernel with the bridging removed so that I can have a clean trial for the vmware netgraph code. As I said, it worked for me once. Maybe I can repeat my good fortune consistently. I'll post with the results. > > > So . . . . > > > With the latest vmware2 port (2.0.3.799_1), which is supposed to "just > > > work" by using netgraph, I can't even communicate from the guest to the > > > host at all. Not even from ...242.1 to ...242.2 or vice versa. > > > Actually, it's a little weirder than that. The *first* time I tried > > > this after installing that port, it all worked beautifully. But after > > > the next time I rebooted my host, it didn't work at all, and it never > > > has since then either. > > > > Strange. The scripts that should be starting these things are in > > /usr/local/etc/rc.d/ called "rtc.sh" "linprocfs.sh" "vmware.sh". They > > should be running when you boot. Do you see them running? Are there > > any errors? > > Well, I've backed up to 2.0.03.799, so it's hard to say for sure without > re-switching ports (which I will do shortly, but you had so many > questions I wanted to try answering what I could at one fell swoop). > With the port I'm currenlty running I don't have a "linprocfs.sh" but I > do have the other two. But I'm not sure if I should have linprocfs.sh > with the port I have or not. I'll send followup mail when I have a > change to try re-installing that port. -- "Brian, the man from babble-on" bts@babbleon.org Brian T. Schellenberger http://www.babbleon.org Support http://www.eff.org. Support decss defendents. Support http://www.programming-freedom.org. Boycott amazon.com. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-emulation" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-emulation Mon Mar 26 21:40:15 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-emulation@freebsd.org Received: from mail8.nc.rr.com (fe8.southeast.rr.com [24.93.67.55]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BED737B719 for ; Mon, 26 Mar 2001 21:40:11 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from bts@babbleon.org) Received: from babbleon.org ([66.26.250.181]) by mail8.nc.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.537.53); Tue, 27 Mar 2001 00:37:17 -0500 Message-ID: <3AC027B4.71D05DBE@babbleon.org> Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 00:40:04 -0500 From: The Babbler Organization: None to speak of X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.12 i386) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: scotty@klement.dstorm.net, The Babbler , freebsd-emulation@freebsd.org Subject: Re: VMware networking (was: Slooow VMware on RELENG_4 SMP) References: <3AC00B6A.54C2B0D7@babbleon.org> <3AC019E0.F1CF1B1E@babbleon.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-emulation@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Well, what do you know! I rebuilt a kernel without firewalling or bridging and re-installed the up-to-date vmware port (2.0.03.799_1). I also set the vmware client to use DHCP. Then I rebooted, sho' nuff it worked. I even rebooted and tried it gain. Of course my VPN access, even from my host, seems to have broken, but it's a good sign. And I'm not ready 'til I verify it at work, but it sure is looking better than it has before. -- "Brian, the man from babble-on" bts@babbleon.org Brian T. Schellenberger http://www.babbleon.org Support http://www.eff.org. Support decss defendents. Support http://www.programming-freedom.org. Boycott amazon.com. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-emulation" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-emulation Fri Mar 30 7:35:48 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-emulation@freebsd.org Received: from duke.cs.duke.edu (duke.cs.duke.edu [152.3.140.1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0B0737B71A for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 07:35:45 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from gallatin@cs.duke.edu) Received: from grasshopper.cs.duke.edu (grasshopper.cs.duke.edu [152.3.145.30]) by duke.cs.duke.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA23504; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 10:35:44 -0500 (EST) Received: (from gallatin@localhost) by grasshopper.cs.duke.edu (8.11.3/8.9.1) id f2UFZEm84021; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 10:35:14 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from gallatin@cs.duke.edu) From: Andrew Gallatin MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15044.42930.682795.254171@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 10:35:14 -0500 (EST) To: Nick Sayer Cc: emulation@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: vmware networking & sysmouse In-Reply-To: <3AAD65D2.6070605@quack.kfu.com> References: <200103112208.f2BM88L85365@gc0.generalconcepts.com> <20010311221123.B1541@tao.org.uk> <3AABF9DF.5E3C6E1F@babbleon.org> <3AAC3D1C.FB6FA0EB@babbleon.org> <20010312092107.A67643@wop21.wop.wtb.tue.nl> <3AAD65D2.6070605@quack.kfu.com> X-Mailer: VM 6.75 under 21.1 (patch 12) "Channel Islands" XEmacs Lucid Sender: owner-freebsd-emulation@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Nick Sayer writes: > > Does anyone know what the issue really is? Perhaps it's worth putting an > option in the kernel to make it not do whatever causes it to chew CPU? > People using vmware could use option VMWARE_GUEST or some such in guest > machines' kernels to make it not do that. Look at the source to the rtc driver. Basically, rtc_poll() does a DELAY() for the amount of time vmware wants to sleep. It would be far better to tsleep(). However, we can't do that because we don't are not able to sleep for a short enough period of time. I think Linux is able alter its rtc frequency on the fly, so they can sleep for a short enough period of time... Drew ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Andrew Gallatin, Sr Systems Programmer http://www.cs.duke.edu/~gallatin Duke University Email: gallatin@cs.duke.edu Department of Computer Science Phone: (919) 660-6590 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-emulation" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-emulation Sat Mar 31 22:22:48 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-emulation@freebsd.org Received: from viola.sinor.ru (viola.sinor.ru [217.70.106.9]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22A4B37B719; Sat, 31 Mar 2001 22:22:29 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from ob341@online.sinor.ru) Received: from online.sinor.ru (p66.bass2.sinor.ru [217.70.108.66]) by viola.sinor.ru (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA23045; Sun, 1 Apr 2001 13:02:32 +0700 Message-Id: <200104010602.NAA23045@viola.sinor.ru> From: "Pavel Borodinsky" To: Subject: Привет, Ларисик! Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-IR-111" Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 13:06:48 +0600 X-Priority: 1 (Highest) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-freebsd-emulation@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Привет, Ларисик!!! Пишет тебе Вика! Ты представляешь, твоего адреса нет в списке аж за месяц! пришлось из адресной книги взять, но и она какая-то косячная у меня последнее время! Т.е. мы с тобой целый месяц не переписывались! Я тут нашла один сайт, посвящённый опере и балету, но там есть такооооое количество музыки!!! Кстати, меня Владимир подписал на рассылки этого сайта, а я сначала подумала, что это была ты! Впрочем я не жалею об этом, а даже рада, но рассылку они пока не ведут, да хотя она и не нужна - нафига эти рассылки, когда на сайте есть всё, что нужно, я имею ввиду музыку, там можно найти любую группу или исполнителя! Ты не представляешь, там такой большой каталог. Там есть как раз то, что ты искала в прошлый раз: OFFSPRING, MADONNA, IRON MAIDEN, VANESSA MAE, QUEEN, STING, DEEP PURPLE, SPICE GIRLS, RAMMSTEIN, SCORPIONS, METALLICA, ну и т.д. Там есть и этническая музыка, я знаю, ты тащишься от неё! Правда, его создатели больше акцентируют внимание на опере и балете. Я заказала у них пару дисков с музыкой для Владимира на день рождения - классно!!! Ему понравилось! Но если ты закажешь, то к тебе они будут идти дня 2-3 (как почта)! А оплатить можно не только почтовым переводом, я с ними попереписывалась, так они сказали, что скоро введут систему интернет-платежей WebMoney. Тогда заказ можно оформлять, особенно по Москве, вообще за сутки! Если интересуешься оперой, то там есть: Норма, Бетховен, ну впрочем и ещё много чего... Короче чего это я разболталась, держи адрес: http://oballet.pochtamt.ru Если адрес не существует, что-то они часто переезжать стали - нафига, то попробуй эти: http://oballet.non.ru http://oballet.cjb.net (здесь какая-то реклама вылазит) Ну всё - пока. Обязательно напиши ответ! Вика. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-emulation" in the body of the message