Skip to content

packet loss from KVM to SSVM public and private ip address  #9246

Closed

Description

@dominar250
ISSUE TYPE
  • Other
COMPONENT NAME

CLOUDSTACK VERSION
CloudStack 4.19.0.1
CONFIGURATION
OS / ENVIRONMENT
SUMMARY

I'm using nested environment over vmware. promiscuous mode and MAC address change ,Forged Transmit are enabled in port group level. SSVM and console proxy agents are up.I'm having issue with packet loss from kvm machine to SSVM /Console proxy vm both private and public ip address. also check.sh scripts works occasionally.

root@cloudstack-kvm:~# bridge link show
2: ens192: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 master cloudbr0 state forwarding priority 32 cost 2
5: vnet0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 master cloud0 state forwarding priority 32 cost 100
6: vnet1: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 master cloudbr0 state forwarding priority 32 cost 100
7: vnet2: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 master cloudbr0 state forwarding priority 32 cost 100
8: vnet3: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 master cloud0 state forwarding priority 32 cost 100
9: vnet4: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 master cloudbr0 state forwarding priority 32 cost 100
10: vnet5: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 master cloudbr0 state forwarding priority 32 cost 100
====================================================================================

root@cloudstack-kvm:~# ip addr show cloudbr0
3: cloudbr0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc noqueue state UP group default qlen 1000
    link/ether 00:50:56:b4:a6:ca brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
    inet 10.158.65.11/25 brd 10.158.65.127 scope global cloudbr0
       valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
    inet6 fe80::250:56ff:feb4:a6ca/64 scope link
       valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
========================================
root@cloudstack-kvm:~# ip addr show ens192
2: ens192: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc mq master cloudbr0 state UP group default qlen 1000
    link/ether 00:50:56:b4:a6:ca brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
    altname enp11s0
root@cloudstack-kvm:~#
STEPS TO REPRODUCE
root@cloudstack-kvm:~# ip addr show cloudbr0
3: cloudbr0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc noqueue state UP group default qlen 1000
    link/ether 00:50:56:b4:a6:ca brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
    inet 10.158.65.11/25 brd 10.158.65.127 scope global cloudbr0
       valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
    inet6 fe80::250:56ff:feb4:a6ca/64 scope link
       valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
========================================
root@cloudstack-kvm:~# ip addr show ens192
2: ens192: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc mq master cloudbr0 state UP group default qlen 1000
    link/ether 00:50:56:b4:a6:ca brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
    altname enp11s0
root@cloudstack-kvm:~#
EXPECTED RESULTS

ping should be working fine on both private and public ips.

ACTUAL RESULTS
root@cloudstack-kvm:~# ping -O 10.158.65.25
PING 10.158.65.25 (10.158.65.25) 56(84) bytes of data.
no answer yet for icmp_seq=1
no answer yet for icmp_seq=2
no answer yet for icmp_seq=3
no answer yet for icmp_seq=4
no answer yet for icmp_seq=5
no answer yet for icmp_seq=6
no answer yet for icmp_seq=7
64 bytes from 10.158.65.25: icmp_seq=8 ttl=64 time=0.284 ms
64 bytes from 10.158.65.25: icmp_seq=9 ttl=64 time=0.285 ms
64 bytes from 10.158.65.25: icmp_seq=10 ttl=64 time=0.250 ms
64 bytes from 10.158.65.25: icmp_seq=11 ttl=64 time=0.203 ms
64 bytes from 10.158.65.25: icmp_seq=12 ttl=64 time=0.238 ms
64 bytes from 10.158.65.25: icmp_seq=13 ttl=64 time=0.162 ms
64 bytes from 10.158.65.25: icmp_seq=14 ttl=64 time=0.219 ms
64 bytes from 10.158.65.25: icmp_seq=15 ttl=64 time=0.189 ms
64 bytes from 10.158.65.25: icmp_seq=16 ttl=64 time=0.280 ms
64 bytes from 10.158.65.25: icmp_seq=17 ttl=64 time=0.180 ms
64 bytes from 10.158.65.25: icmp_seq=18 ttl=64 time=0.177 ms
64 bytes from 10.158.65.25: icmp_seq=19 ttl=64 time=0.218 ms
64 bytes from 10.158.65.25: icmp_seq=20 ttl=64 time=0.262 ms
64 bytes from 10.158.65.25: icmp_seq=21 ttl=64 time=0.229 ms
64 bytes from 10.158.65.25: icmp_seq=22 ttl=64 time=0.319 ms
64 bytes from 10.158.65.25: icmp_seq=23 ttl=64 time=0.305 ms

Screenshot 2024-06-13 120157

Activity

  1. boring-cyborg commented on Jun 13, 2024

    @boring-cyborg

    Thanks for opening your first issue here! Be sure to follow the issue template!

  2. DaanHoogland commented on Jun 13, 2024

    @DaanHoogland
    Contributor

    @dominar250 I cleanup the description a bit, please let me know if i messed it up. I do not understand your full scenario yet. you are pinging the console proxy but that does not reflect in your description.

    Can you expand a bit on the scenario and the problem?
    Is this initial packet drop concequently reproducible and is it true for the SSVM as well?

  3. dominar250 commented on Jun 13, 2024

    @dominar250
    Author

    @DaanHoogland Thanks for addressing this issue. From SSVM/consoleproxy i can able to ping my kvm machine and management server which is stable . But I can't get constant ping from kvm or management server to the public/private ip address for ssvm and console vm. ping is toggling , initial level or after couple of pings

  4. weizhouapache commented on Jun 13, 2024

    @weizhouapache
    Member

    @DaanHoogland Thanks for addressing this issue. From SSVM/consoleproxy i can able to ping my kvm machine and management server which is stable . But I can't get constant ping from kvm or management server to the public/private ip address for ssvm and console vm. ping is toggling , initial level or after couple of pings

    @dominar250
    it might be cause public/private IP of system vms are in the same range
    can you share output of "ip a" in the system vms ?

  5. dominar250 commented on Jun 13, 2024

    @dominar250
    Author

    @DaanHoogland
    root@s-55-VM:~# ip a
    1: lo: <LOOPBACK,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 65536 qdisc noqueue state UNKNOWN group default qlen 1000
    link/loopback 00:00:00:00:00:00 brd 00:00:00:00:00:00
    inet 127.0.0.1/8 scope host lo
    valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
    2: eth0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc pfifo_fast state UP group default qlen 1000
    link/ether 0e:00:a9:fe:88:07 brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
    altname enp0s3
    altname ens3
    inet 169.254.136.7/16 brd 169.254.255.255 scope global eth0
    valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
    3: eth1: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc pfifo_fast state UP group default qlen 1000
    link/ether 1e:00:f7:00:00:02 brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
    altname enp0s4
    altname ens4
    inet 10.158.65.24/25 brd 10.158.65.127 scope global eth1
    valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
    4: eth2: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc pfifo_fast state UP group default qlen 1000
    link/ether 1e:00:64:00:00:15 brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
    altname enp0s5
    altname ens5
    inet 10.158.65.13/25 brd 10.158.65.127 scope global eth2
    valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever

  6. dominar250 commented on Jun 13, 2024

    @dominar250
    Author
  7. weizhouapache commented on Jun 13, 2024

    @weizhouapache
    Member

    @dominar250
    I think it is because your systemvm have two nics/ips in the same range
    typically the public and private should use different ip range and vlan/vni.

  8. dominar250 commented on Jun 13, 2024

    @dominar250
    Author

    @weizhouapache So cloudstack could'nt work with single ip range ?

  9. weizhouapache commented on Jun 13, 2024

    @weizhouapache
    Member

    @weizhouapache So cloudstack could'nt work with single ip range ?

    There may be some issues with vm console and ssvm (download template/volume, etc).
    Everything else should work.
    It is not recommended to use single ip range. If you are just playing with cloudstack, it is ok. If you want to run a product env, you need a better design.

  10. dominar250 commented on Jun 13, 2024

    @dominar250
    Author

    @weizhouapache Thanks for the suggestion. Is it a good idea to run management, KVM, and NFS on a single machine? Does this setup cause routing-related issues? My plan is to use CloudStack only for Kubernetes cluster development

  11. DaanHoogland commented on Jun 14, 2024

    @DaanHoogland
    Contributor

    sounds good @dominar250 , but still a separate ip range for the host and for the SVMs (and VMs in general) is best.

  12. locked and limited conversation to collaborators on Jun 14, 2024
  13. converted this issue into a discussion #9254 on Jun 14, 2024
  14. added this to the unplanned milestone on Sep 20, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    No projects

      Relationships

      None yet

      Development

      No branches or pull requests

      Issue actions