What is the simplest way to connect hosts on the same subnet? [closed]
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
-2
down vote
favorite
I would like to achieve that what ever hosts (that are on the same subnet) I connect on ethx on tunx, could see (ping, have ip connection) the other ones located on the the other ethx or tunx (on the same subnet). This seems to be not possible with the bridge, any suggestions? (Not something like openvswitch, something simple/small)
+-----------+
| BR0 | 10.11.12.x
172.16.1.y | | 172.16.1.x
--------|ETH2 TUN1|-------
| |
| | 172.16.1.x
10.11.12.y | TUN2|-------
--------|ETH1 |
+-----------+
In this situation below I can ping a vm from br0 connected to 172.16.1.y
+-----------+
| BR0 |
172.16.1.y | | 172.16.1.x
--------|ETH2 TUN1|-------
| |
| | 172.16.1.x
| TUN2|-------
| |
+-----------+
When only adding a 2nd eth adapter with 'brctl addif br0 eth1' connected to 10.11.12.y. The same ping is not working anymore. I learned this is because the bridge mac changes to the newly added eth1s mac changing it back with 'ifconfig br0 hw ether ' to eth2 restablishes the connection with 172.16.1.y.
+-----------+
| BR0 |
172.16.1.y | | 172.16.1.x
--------|ETH2 TUN1|-------
| |
| | 172.16.1.x
10.11.12.y | TUN2|-------
--------|ETH1 |
+-----------+
The problem is that I seem to be only able to ping either 10.11.12.y or 172.16.1.y even with try to force arp updates with 'arping -I br0 -s 10.11.12.158 10.11.12.1' or setting dedicated entries in the arp table.
Theoritically it should be possible to bridge multiple subnets over a bridge?
UPDATE:
I have BR0 vm in vmware and someone from the Linux Advanced Routing & Traffic Control mailing list told me that vswitch of vmware is likely to cause eth1 and eth2 to behave differently. Eg. my config should already working.
networking routing ethernet bridge
asked Apr 28 at 14:18
f1 outsourcing
11
closed as unclear what you're asking by Kiwy, Romeo Ninov, Jesse_b, G-Man, GAD3R May 3 at 9:22
Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
add a comment |Â
up vote
-2
down vote
favorite
I would like to achieve that what ever hosts (that are on the same subnet) I connect on ethx on tunx, could see (ping, have ip connection) the other ones located on the the other ethx or tunx (on the same subnet). This seems to be not possible with the bridge, any suggestions? (Not something like openvswitch, something simple/small)
+-----------+
| BR0 | 10.11.12.x
172.16.1.y | | 172.16.1.x
--------|ETH2 TUN1|-------
| |
| | 172.16.1.x
10.11.12.y | TUN2|-------
--------|ETH1 |
+-----------+
In this situation below I can ping a vm from br0 connected to 172.16.1.y
+-----------+
| BR0 |
172.16.1.y | | 172.16.1.x
--------|ETH2 TUN1|-------
| |
| | 172.16.1.x
| TUN2|-------
| |
+-----------+
When only adding a 2nd eth adapter with 'brctl addif br0 eth1' connected to 10.11.12.y. The same ping is not working anymore. I learned this is because the bridge mac changes to the newly added eth1s mac changing it back with 'ifconfig br0 hw ether ' to eth2 restablishes the connection with 172.16.1.y.
+-----------+
| BR0 |
172.16.1.y | | 172.16.1.x
--------|ETH2 TUN1|-------
| |
| | 172.16.1.x
10.11.12.y | TUN2|-------
--------|ETH1 |
+-----------+
The problem is that I seem to be only able to ping either 10.11.12.y or 172.16.1.y even with try to force arp updates with 'arping -I br0 -s 10.11.12.158 10.11.12.1' or setting dedicated entries in the arp table.
Theoritically it should be possible to bridge multiple subnets over a bridge?
UPDATE:
I have BR0 vm in vmware and someone from the Linux Advanced Routing & Traffic Control mailing list told me that vswitch of vmware is likely to cause eth1 and eth2 to behave differently. Eg. my config should already working.
networking routing ethernet bridge
asked Apr 28 at 14:18
f1 outsourcing
11
closed as unclear what you're asking by Kiwy, Romeo Ninov, Jesse_b, G-Man, GAD3R May 3 at 9:22
Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
i dont want to route between the subnets, the hosts on the subnet (including the ip on the bridge need to be able to see each other
– f1 outsourcing
Apr 28 at 17:54
Either you need to route or all the hosts need to be in the same subnet. Your call.
– roaima
Apr 28 at 22:45
add a comment |Â
up vote
-2
down vote
favorite
up vote
-2
down vote
favorite
I would like to achieve that what ever hosts (that are on the same subnet) I connect on ethx on tunx, could see (ping, have ip connection) the other ones located on the the other ethx or tunx (on the same subnet). This seems to be not possible with the bridge, any suggestions? (Not something like openvswitch, something simple/small)
+-----------+
| BR0 | 10.11.12.x
172.16.1.y | | 172.16.1.x
--------|ETH2 TUN1|-------
| |
| | 172.16.1.x
10.11.12.y | TUN2|-------
--------|ETH1 |
+-----------+
In this situation below I can ping a vm from br0 connected to 172.16.1.y
+-----------+
| BR0 |
172.16.1.y | | 172.16.1.x
--------|ETH2 TUN1|-------
| |
| | 172.16.1.x
| TUN2|-------
| |
+-----------+
When only adding a 2nd eth adapter with 'brctl addif br0 eth1' connected to 10.11.12.y. The same ping is not working anymore. I learned this is because the bridge mac changes to the newly added eth1s mac changing it back with 'ifconfig br0 hw ether ' to eth2 restablishes the connection with 172.16.1.y.
+-----------+
| BR0 |
172.16.1.y | | 172.16.1.x
--------|ETH2 TUN1|-------
| |
| | 172.16.1.x
10.11.12.y | TUN2|-------
--------|ETH1 |
+-----------+
The problem is that I seem to be only able to ping either 10.11.12.y or 172.16.1.y even with try to force arp updates with 'arping -I br0 -s 10.11.12.158 10.11.12.1' or setting dedicated entries in the arp table.
Theoritically it should be possible to bridge multiple subnets over a bridge?
UPDATE:
I have BR0 vm in vmware and someone from the Linux Advanced Routing & Traffic Control mailing list told me that vswitch of vmware is likely to cause eth1 and eth2 to behave differently. Eg. my config should already working.
networking routing ethernet bridge
asked Apr 28 at 14:18
f1 outsourcing
11
I would like to achieve that what ever hosts (that are on the same subnet) I connect on ethx on tunx, could see (ping, have ip connection) the other ones located on the the other ethx or tunx (on the same subnet). This seems to be not possible with the bridge, any suggestions? (Not something like openvswitch, something simple/small)
+-----------+
| BR0 | 10.11.12.x
172.16.1.y | | 172.16.1.x
--------|ETH2 TUN1|-------
| |
| | 172.16.1.x
10.11.12.y | TUN2|-------
--------|ETH1 |
+-----------+
In this situation below I can ping a vm from br0 connected to 172.16.1.y
+-----------+
| BR0 |
172.16.1.y | | 172.16.1.x
--------|ETH2 TUN1|-------
| |
| | 172.16.1.x
| TUN2|-------
| |
+-----------+
When only adding a 2nd eth adapter with 'brctl addif br0 eth1' connected to 10.11.12.y. The same ping is not working anymore. I learned this is because the bridge mac changes to the newly added eth1s mac changing it back with 'ifconfig br0 hw ether ' to eth2 restablishes the connection with 172.16.1.y.
+-----------+
| BR0 |
172.16.1.y | | 172.16.1.x
--------|ETH2 TUN1|-------
| |
| | 172.16.1.x
10.11.12.y | TUN2|-------
--------|ETH1 |
+-----------+
The problem is that I seem to be only able to ping either 10.11.12.y or 172.16.1.y even with try to force arp updates with 'arping -I br0 -s 10.11.12.158 10.11.12.1' or setting dedicated entries in the arp table.
Theoritically it should be possible to bridge multiple subnets over a bridge?
UPDATE:
I have BR0 vm in vmware and someone from the Linux Advanced Routing & Traffic Control mailing list told me that vswitch of vmware is likely to cause eth1 and eth2 to behave differently. Eg. my config should already working.
networking routing ethernet bridge
asked Apr 28 at 14:18
f1 outsourcing
11
edited May 2 at 8:00
asked Apr 28 at 14:18
f1 outsourcing
11
asked Apr 28 at 14:18
f1 outsourcing
11
asked Apr 28 at 14:18
f1 outsourcing
11
11
closed as unclear what you're asking by Kiwy, Romeo Ninov, Jesse_b, G-Man, GAD3R May 3 at 9:22
Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
closed as unclear what you're asking by Kiwy, Romeo Ninov, Jesse_b, G-Man, GAD3R May 3 at 9:22
Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
i dont want to route between the subnets, the hosts on the subnet (including the ip on the bridge need to be able to see each other
– f1 outsourcing
Apr 28 at 17:54
Either you need to route or all the hosts need to be in the same subnet. Your call.
– roaima
Apr 28 at 22:45
add a comment |Â
i dont want to route between the subnets, the hosts on the subnet (including the ip on the bridge need to be able to see each other
– f1 outsourcing
Apr 28 at 17:54
Either you need to route or all the hosts need to be in the same subnet. Your call.
– roaima
Apr 28 at 22:45
i dont want to route between the subnets, the hosts on the subnet (including the ip on the bridge need to be able to see each other
– f1 outsourcing
Apr 28 at 17:54
i dont want to route between the subnets, the hosts on the subnet (including the ip on the bridge need to be able to see each other
– f1 outsourcing
Apr 28 at 17:54
Either you need to route or all the hosts need to be in the same subnet. Your call.
– roaima
Apr 28 at 22:45
Either you need to route or all the hosts need to be in the same subnet. Your call.
– roaima
Apr 28 at 22:45
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
You cannot bridge different subnets of a routed protocol such as IP. You can bridge two (or more) of the same subnet. You can route between two (or more) different subnets.
If you want machines on subnet A to be able to contact machines on subnet B you need to route between them. The bridge won't help.
answered Apr 28 at 15:12
roaima
39.4k545106
bridging is done at level 2 not? what ever hosts I am connecting on interface tunx, ethx, should be able to connect to other hosts in the same subnet on a different interface tunx, ethx
– f1 outsourcing
Apr 29 at 9:22
@f1outsourcing if you're using a non-routed protocol this is true. For a routed protocol (L3) such as IP this simply isn't possible unless you're going to futz around with proxy arp and the like.
– roaima
Apr 29 at 12:46
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
You cannot bridge different subnets of a routed protocol such as IP. You can bridge two (or more) of the same subnet. You can route between two (or more) different subnets.
If you want machines on subnet A to be able to contact machines on subnet B you need to route between them. The bridge won't help.
answered Apr 28 at 15:12
roaima
39.4k545106
bridging is done at level 2 not? what ever hosts I am connecting on interface tunx, ethx, should be able to connect to other hosts in the same subnet on a different interface tunx, ethx
– f1 outsourcing
Apr 29 at 9:22
@f1outsourcing if you're using a non-routed protocol this is true. For a routed protocol (L3) such as IP this simply isn't possible unless you're going to futz around with proxy arp and the like.
– roaima
Apr 29 at 12:46
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
You cannot bridge different subnets of a routed protocol such as IP. You can bridge two (or more) of the same subnet. You can route between two (or more) different subnets.
If you want machines on subnet A to be able to contact machines on subnet B you need to route between them. The bridge won't help.
answered Apr 28 at 15:12
roaima
39.4k545106
bridging is done at level 2 not? what ever hosts I am connecting on interface tunx, ethx, should be able to connect to other hosts in the same subnet on a different interface tunx, ethx
– f1 outsourcing
Apr 29 at 9:22
@f1outsourcing if you're using a non-routed protocol this is true. For a routed protocol (L3) such as IP this simply isn't possible unless you're going to futz around with proxy arp and the like.
– roaima
Apr 29 at 12:46
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
You cannot bridge different subnets of a routed protocol such as IP. You can bridge two (or more) of the same subnet. You can route between two (or more) different subnets.
If you want machines on subnet A to be able to contact machines on subnet B you need to route between them. The bridge won't help.
answered Apr 28 at 15:12
roaima
39.4k545106
You cannot bridge different subnets of a routed protocol such as IP. You can bridge two (or more) of the same subnet. You can route between two (or more) different subnets.
If you want machines on subnet A to be able to contact machines on subnet B you need to route between them. The bridge won't help.
answered Apr 28 at 15:12
roaima
39.4k545106
answered Apr 28 at 15:12
roaima
39.4k545106
answered Apr 28 at 15:12
roaima
39.4k545106
answered Apr 28 at 15:12
roaima
39.4k545106
39.4k545106
bridging is done at level 2 not? what ever hosts I am connecting on interface tunx, ethx, should be able to connect to other hosts in the same subnet on a different interface tunx, ethx
– f1 outsourcing
Apr 29 at 9:22
@f1outsourcing if you're using a non-routed protocol this is true. For a routed protocol (L3) such as IP this simply isn't possible unless you're going to futz around with proxy arp and the like.
– roaima
Apr 29 at 12:46
add a comment |Â
bridging is done at level 2 not? what ever hosts I am connecting on interface tunx, ethx, should be able to connect to other hosts in the same subnet on a different interface tunx, ethx
– f1 outsourcing
Apr 29 at 9:22
@f1outsourcing if you're using a non-routed protocol this is true. For a routed protocol (L3) such as IP this simply isn't possible unless you're going to futz around with proxy arp and the like.
– roaima
Apr 29 at 12:46
bridging is done at level 2 not? what ever hosts I am connecting on interface tunx, ethx, should be able to connect to other hosts in the same subnet on a different interface tunx, ethx
– f1 outsourcing
Apr 29 at 9:22
bridging is done at level 2 not? what ever hosts I am connecting on interface tunx, ethx, should be able to connect to other hosts in the same subnet on a different interface tunx, ethx
– f1 outsourcing
Apr 29 at 9:22
@f1outsourcing if you're using a non-routed protocol this is true. For a routed protocol (L3) such as IP this simply isn't possible unless you're going to futz around with proxy arp and the like.
– roaima
Apr 29 at 12:46
@f1outsourcing if you're using a non-routed protocol this is true. For a routed protocol (L3) such as IP this simply isn't possible unless you're going to futz around with proxy arp and the like.
– roaima
Apr 29 at 12:46
add a comment |Â
i dont want to route between the subnets, the hosts on the subnet (including the ip on the bridge need to be able to see each other
– f1 outsourcing
Apr 28 at 17:54
Either you need to route or all the hosts need to be in the same subnet. Your call.
– roaima
Apr 28 at 22:45