vmnet errors - Ubuntu

This is a discussion on vmnet errors - Ubuntu ; * Hadron wrote in alt.os.linux.ubuntu: > Joe LaVigne writes: >> On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 13:59:30 GMT >> Bit Twister wrote: >>> On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 15:27:18 +0200, Hadron wrote: >>> > Bit Twister writes: >>> > I didn't ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 27 of 27

Thread: vmnet errors

  1. Re: vmnet errors

    * Hadron wrote in alt.os.linux.ubuntu:
    > Joe LaVigne writes:


    >> On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 13:59:30 GMT
    >> Bit Twister wrote:


    >>> On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 15:27:18 +0200, Hadron wrote:
    >>> > Bit Twister writes:


    >>> > I didn't disable any firewall. Please explain.
    >>> > I rarely use VMWare so
    >>> > rather than have messages every few seconds logging to
    >>> > /var/log/messages it seems ok just to remove VMWare. The messages
    >>> > are now gone.


    >>> You told us you (I got rid of them by removing VMWare for now).
    >>> There went the firewall if that stopped the error messages.


    >> VMWare is not a firewall...


    > Joe, read the other parts of the thread. Bittwister has less of a clue
    > than I do.


    Not possible.

    --
    David
    The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org/

    Killing is wrong.
    -- Losira, "That Which Survives", stardate unknown

  2. Re: vmnet errors

    On Sat, 08 Sep 2007 11:46:21 GMT
    Bit Twister wrote:

    > > WTF? What "mucking" around?

    >
    > You have tried making my suggested changes in 192.168.x.x's
    > process/services when the log message source indicates the process
    > message is comming from 17*.1*.7*.*
    >
    > That is why you should be working on the problem in 17*.1*.7*.*'s
    > serices not 192.168.x.x
    >
    > Up to the last few posts, you failed to provide which machines have
    > what addresses so I made the assumption 17*.1*.7*.* was your ip
    > address.
    >
    > Most newbie posters masking ip address do not want anyone knowing the
    > WAN/internet ip address of their node. I just assumed you must be one
    > of thoses thinking that keeps you safe and we were talking about one
    > system connected directly to your ISP.
    >
    > > I have an error message on my local machine.

    >
    > Big Freaking Deal, it does not mean the problem is on your machine,
    > the network packet can come from outside your machine.
    >
    > > I have one machine. As is usual with most machines behind
    > > a router it has a 192.168. IP form address.

    >
    > Until you provided the information, how in the HELL were WE supposed
    > to KNOW you were behind a router.
    >
    > > I dont think you have a clue what you are talking about.

    >
    > Up to the last few replies, you managed to hide the basic clues.
    >
    > Now that you have called me abusive and clueless, I see you have:
    > 1. failed to read, or not understand,
    > http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
    >
    > 2. fallen into the category indicated in the first paragraph of
    > http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-...tml#not_losing
    >
    >
    >
    > So, let us see if I can put forth some basic information and let
    > someone else go from here.
    >
    > Hardware setup:
    >
    > NOTE: All information in boxes may or may not be correct.
    > They are to be used as reference only.
    >
    > .------ router ------. localhost
    > Internet<--->| WAN 63.208.196.104 |
    > .-------------------------------.
    > | LAN 192.168.1.1 |<----->| 192.168.1.2
    > fsf.homelinux.net | `--------------------'
    > `-------------------------------'
    >
    > This machine (192.168.1.2) has this entry:
    >
    > Sep 7 14:00:08 localhost kernel: [20264.187749] Unknown OutputIN=
    > OUT=vmnet8 SRC=17*.1*.7*.* DST=17*.1*.7*.25* LEN=172 TOS=0x00
    > PREC=0x00 TTL=64 ID=0 DF PROTO=UDP SPT=631 DPT=631 LEN=152
    >
    >
    >
    > Looking at DST=17*.1*.7*.25* we can only ASSuME that 25* is really
    > 17*.1*.7*.255 then that would make the packet a broadcast at
    > destination port target (DPT) of 631.
    >
    > Looking in /etc/services using the DPT value we can ASSuME it is a
    > broadcast to a print deamon/serivce.
    >
    > Since the source port (SPT=631) is the same service port found in
    > /etc/services, we can ASSuMe it is a print server on the source IP
    > (SRC=17*.1*.7*.*) machine.
    >
    > All YOU need to do is tell the process using output port 631 with ip
    > 17*.1*.7*.*, to quit broadcasting messages.
    >
    > PS:
    > Since you find me abusive and clueless, feel free to place me in your
    > kill file with a score of -9999.
    > I will ASSUME my posts will no longer bother you.


    You are missing the point. 17x.1x.x.x is on the same machine. You are
    not discussing several machines. He said he was running VMWare. You
    are misunderstanding how VMWare works.

    When you install VMWare server, 2 additional network adapters are
    installed. VMNET0 and VMNET1. They are for local machine use. They
    reside on the same machine, and use addresses in local subnets not
    currently present on the LAN.

    He is running a firewall on his machine. The VMWare adapter is passing
    packets for port 631, and being stopped at the firewall. The originator
    of those packets is on the local machine, not elsewhere on the LAN.

    The question is why are packets being originated for port 631 from the
    VMNET adapter if there is no VM installed? The VMWare port for
    management is 902 (iirc), so it's not that.

    My semi-educated guess is that Cups is configured to broadcast on all
    local network adapters. When the VMNET adapter is installed, it starts
    broadcasting. Since the firewall is blocking that port for that nic,
    you get errors.

    Solution (now that I've had a few days to think about it) would be
    either:

    a) Configure CUPS to only talk to eth0.

    b) Configure the firewall to pass the same ports for the VMNET adapters.

    Hope that helps some, Hadron. It is not any form of malware, it is
    simply a network adapter passing what CUPS is asking it to...


    --
    Joe - Registered Linux User #449481

    "Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the
    time..."
    - Danny, American History X


  3. Re: vmnet errors

    On Sat, 08 Sep 2007 11:03:55 +0200
    Hadron wrote:

    > Joe LaVigne writes:
    >
    > > On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 13:59:30 GMT
    > > Bit Twister wrote:
    > >
    > >> On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 15:27:18 +0200, Hadron wrote:
    > >> > Bit Twister writes:
    > >> >
    > >> > I didn't disable any firewall. Please explain.
    > >> > I rarely use VMWare so
    > >> > rather than have messages every few seconds logging to
    > >> > /var/log/messages it seems ok just to remove VMWare. The messages
    > >> > are now gone.
    > >>
    > >> You told us you (I got rid of them by removing VMWare for now).
    > >> There went the firewall if that stopped the error messages.

    > >
    > > VMWare is not a firewall...

    >
    > Joe, read the other parts of the thread. Bittwister has less of a clue
    > than I do.


    He just doesn't seem to know much about VMWare, which is OK, IMO. I
    think I may have figured out the answer to your dilemma, and responded
    up above somewhere... ;-)


    --
    Joe - Registered Linux User #449481

    "Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the
    time..."
    - Danny, American History X


  4. Re: vmnet errors

    On Sat, 8 Sep 2007 10:48:12 -0400, Joe LaVigne wrote:
    >
    > You are missing the point. 17x.1x.x.x is on the same machine.


    No I am not missing the point.

    > You are not discussing several machines. He said he was running
    > VMWare. You are misunderstanding how VMWare works.


    I thought I had a pretty good idea on the general operation of VMware.
    It has a linux operating system which allows you to run vitural
    machines under it's control.

    > When you install VMWare server, 2 additional network adapters are
    > installed. VMNET0 and VMNET1. They are for local machine use. They
    > reside on the same machine, and use addresses in local subnets not
    > currently present on the LAN.


    I can agree pretty much with that. Let's look at this


    Example 1:

    .--------------------.
    Internet<--->| WAN 63.208.196.104 |
    | LAN 192.168.1.1 |
    `--------+-----------'
    |
    |
    |
    .----------------+----------------------------------.
    | 192.168.1.2 |
    | VMWare |
    | 172.16.1.1 |
    | | |
    | +-------------------. |
    | | | |
    | .------------+------. .-------+-----------. |
    | | 172.16.1.2 | | 172.16.1.1 | |
    | | xpw.homelinux.net | | fsf.homelinux.net | |
    | | XP Home | | fsf.homelinux.net | |
    | `-------------------' `-------------------' |
    `---------------------------------------------------'

    > He is running a firewall on his machine. The VMWare adapter is passing
    > packets for port 631, and being stopped at the firewall. The originator
    > of those packets is on the local machine, not elsewhere on the LAN.


    Yep, until we received information about only one machine behind one
    router, that was up in the air. I saw no reason not to have something like,

    Example 2:

    63.208.196.104
    |
    |
    .-----+----. .-------------. .------------.
    |isp_router|-----|192.168.1.2 |------| 172.16.1.2 |
    | 192.168.1| | user_router | `------------'
    `----------' | 172.16.1.1| .------------.
    | |------| 172.16.1.3 |
    `-------------' `------------'

    We see how paranoid Hadron is about providing any network information.
    We cannot be sure about any information/facts he provides as long as
    he continues to decide what information we do not need to troubleshoot
    his problem.


    > Hope that helps some, Hadron. It is not any form of malware, it is
    > simply a network adapter passing what CUPS is asking it to...



    Hehehe, maybe it is from xpw.homelinux.net shown in Example 1.

  5. Re: vmnet errors

    On Sat, 08 Sep 2007 15:46:19 GMT
    Bit Twister wrote:

    > On Sat, 8 Sep 2007 10:48:12 -0400, Joe LaVigne wrote:
    > >
    > > You are missing the point. 17x.1x.x.x is on the same machine.

    >
    > No I am not missing the point.


    You are. Still.

    >
    > > You are not discussing several machines. He said he was running
    > > VMWare. You are misunderstanding how VMWare works.

    >
    > I thought I had a pretty good idea on the general operation of VMware.
    > It has a linux operating system which allows you to run vitural
    > machines under it's control.


    No. VMWare ESX Server is much like you say. VMWare Server, VMWare
    workstation, and VMWare Player are all apps that run on top of your
    current OS. Since he is asking the question in an Ubuntu forum, and
    since you are fond of assumptions, it is fair to assume he is not
    running VMWare ESX Server, which is quite expensive, and requires very
    specific Server level hardware...


    >
    > > When you install VMWare server, 2 additional network adapters are
    > > installed. VMNET0 and VMNET1. They are for local machine use.
    > > They reside on the same machine, and use addresses in local subnets
    > > not currently present on the LAN.

    >
    > I can agree pretty much with that. Let's look at this
    >
    >
    > Example 1:
    >
    > .--------------------.
    > Internet<--->| WAN 63.208.196.104 |
    > | LAN 192.168.1.1 |
    > `--------+-----------'
    > |
    > |
    > |
    > .----------------+----------------------------------.
    > | 192.168.1.2 |
    > | VMWare |
    > | 172.16.1.1 |
    > | | |
    > | +-------------------. |
    > | | | |
    > | .------------+------. .-------+-----------. |
    > | | 172.16.1.2 | | 172.16.1.1 | |
    > | | xpw.homelinux.net | | fsf.homelinux.net | |
    > | | XP Home | | fsf.homelinux.net | |
    > | `-------------------' `-------------------' |
    > `---------------------------------------------------'
    >
    > > He is running a firewall on his machine. The VMWare adapter is
    > > passing packets for port 631, and being stopped at the firewall.
    > > The originator of those packets is on the local machine, not
    > > elsewhere on the LAN.

    >
    > Yep, until we received information about only one machine behind one
    > router, that was up in the air. I saw no reason not to have something
    > like,
    >
    > Example 2:
    >
    > 63.208.196.104
    > |
    > |
    > .-----+----. .-------------. .------------.
    > |isp_router|-----|192.168.1.2 |------| 172.16.1.2 |
    > | 192.168.1| | user_router | `------------'
    > `----------' | 172.16.1.1| .------------.
    > | |------| 172.16.1.3 |
    > `-------------' `------------'
    >
    > We see how paranoid Hadron is about providing any network information.
    > We cannot be sure about any information/facts he provides as long as
    > he continues to decide what information we do not need to troubleshoot
    > his problem.


    The information he gave was sufficient.

    >
    >
    > > Hope that helps some, Hadron. It is not any form of malware, it is
    > > simply a network adapter passing what CUPS is asking it to...

    >
    >
    > Hehehe, maybe it is from xpw.homelinux.net shown in Example 1.



    --
    Joe - Registered Linux User #449481

    "Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the
    time..."
    - Danny, American History X


  6. Re: vmnet errors

    On Sat, 08 Sep 2007 13:49:59 GMT, SINNER wrote:

    >> Joe, read the other parts of the thread. Bittwister has less of a clue
    >> than I do.

    >
    > Not possible.


    Gosh, a dig without adding anything useful, I could almost have
    written that myself!!!

    --
    Chris Game

    How to report bugs effectively:
    http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html

  7. Re: vmnet errors

    * Chris Game wrote in alt.os.linux.ubuntu:
    > On Sat, 08 Sep 2007 13:49:59 GMT, SINNER wrote:


    >>> Joe, read the other parts of the thread. Bittwister has less of a clue
    >>> than I do.


    >> Not possible.


    > Gosh, a dig without adding anything useful, I could almost have
    > written that myself!!!


    You do, daily.

    'Oops' another one. Yeah, not much of a troll are you?

    --
    David
    The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org/

    The life which is unexamined is not worth living.
    -- Plato

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2