On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 08:57:50AM -0400, Fabian Deutsch wrote:
----- Original Message -----
> On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 09:11:42AM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 05:13:28PM +0100, Dan Kenigsberg wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 10:14:54AM +0200, NUNIN Roberto wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Jul 06, 2015 at 10:33:59AM +0200, NUNIN Roberto wrote:
> > > > > > Hi Dan
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sorry for question: what do you mean for interface vnetxxxx
?
> > > > > > Currently our path is :
> > > > > > eno1 - eno2 ---- bond0 ----- bond.3500 (VLAN) ------
bridge -----
> > > > > > vm.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Which one of these ?
> > > > > > Moreover, reading Fabian statements about bonding limits,
today I
> > > > > > can try
> > > > > to switch to a config without bonding.
> > > > >
> > > > > "vm" is a complicated term.
> > > > >
> > > > > `brctl show` would not show you a "vm" connected to a
bridge. When
> > > > > you
> > > > > WOULD see is a vnet888 tap device. The "other side" of
this device is
> > > > > held by qemu, which implement the VM.
> > > >
> > > > Ok, understood and found it, vnet2
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm asking if the dhcp offer has reached that tap device.
> > > >
> > > > No, the DHCP offer packet do not reach the vnet2 interface, I can
see
> > > > only DHCP DISCOVER.
> > >
> > > Ok, so it seems that we have a problem in the host bridging.
> > >
> > > Is it the latest kernel-3.10.0-229.7.2.el7.x86_64 ?
> > >
> > > Michael, a DHCP DISCOVER is sent out of a just-booted guest, and OFFER
> > > returns to the bridge, but is not propagated to the tap device.
> > > Can you suggest how to debug this further?
> >
> > Dump packets including the ethernet headers.
> > Likely something interfered with them so the eth address is wrong.
> >
> > Since bonding does this sometimes, this is the most likely culprit.
>
> We've ruled this out already - Roberto reproduces the issue without a
> bond.
To me this looks like either a regression in the host side bridging. But otoh it
doesn't look
like it's happening always, because otherwise I'd expect more noise around this
issue.
- fabian
Hard to say. E.g. forwarding delay would do this for a while.
If eth address of the packets is okay, poke at the fbd, maybe there's
something wrong there. Maybe stp is detecting a loop - try checking that.
--
MST