12-22-2016 10:37 PM - edited 03-01-2019 04:35 AM
We are now at Customer site, working on an APIC-EM PoC for my FSI Banking customer. They hit some issue for setting up our standalone APIC-EM server. The APIC-EM is using 169.254.0.0/16 network as LXC network (grape-br0) by default. The grape-br0 is defined in /etc/default/lxc-net.
Customer has the following questions
Appreciate for your prompt reply.
12-23-2016 05:14 AM
Hi,
What exactly is the issue that they ran into? It is correct that the LXC's use a private internal network. The customer uses 169.x.x.x for their internal scope?
In order for a LXC to communicate with the outside world it connects to the Router Service. As such their network is not externally reachable.
Could you detail the issue a bit more. As to motivation etc.
Thanks
12-23-2016 10:14 AM
Hi,
169.254/16 is local link address as defined in RFC. It can be used only for communication only within broadcast domain.
Customers cannot really use this subnet the same way as other IP addresses.
Misha
01-05-2017 01:05 AM
Hi Nicolas & Misha,
Wish both of you a Happy New Year! Thank you for both of your replies.
Coincidentally, my customer is using internally the same 169.254.xxx.xxx IP network for other purpose on their Production network. This clashes with APIC-EM LXC network IP range and is having Duplicate IP issue. Hence, Customer is asking
how can he change LXC network to other IP address range?
regards
Steven Quek
01-05-2017 05:24 AM
Hi Steven,
Lets take a look at an example of ifconfig:
eth0 | Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:50:56:84:9a:73 |
inet addr:172.18.123.52 Bcast:172.18.123.255 Mask:255.255.255.0 | |
UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 | |
RX packets:957567775 errors:0 dropped:4522 overruns:0 frame:0 | |
TX packets:977463248 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 | |
collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000 | |
RX bytes:784743518825 (784.7 GB) TX bytes:775960165949 (775.9 GB) |
eth0:0 | Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:50:56:84:9a:73 |
inet addr:172.18.123.49 Bcast:172.18.123.255 Mask:255.255.255.0 | |
UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 |
grape-br0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr fe:10:c2:93:eb:0b
inet addr:169.254.1.1 Bcast:169.254.1.255 Mask:255.255.255.0 | |
UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 | |
RX packets:34040305 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 | |
TX packets:45462145 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 | |
collisions:0 txqueuelen:0 | |
RX bytes:6322852828 (6.3 GB) TX bytes:12965249801 (12.9 GB) |
Lets see what is reachable from outside:
$ ping -c 1 172.18.123.52
PING 172.18.123.52 (172.18.123.52): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 172.18.123.52: icmp_seq=0 ttl=55 time=0.746 ms
--- 172.18.123.52 ping statistics ---
1 packets transmitted, 1 packets received, 0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 0.746/0.746/0.746/0.000 ms
$ ping -c 1 172.18.123.49
PING 172.18.123.49 (172.18.123.49): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 172.18.123.49: icmp_seq=0 ttl=55 time=0.681 ms
--- 172.18.123.49 ping statistics ---
1 packets transmitted, 1 packets received, 0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 0.681/0.681/0.681/0.000 ms
$ ping -c 1 169.254.1.1
PING 169.254.1.1 (169.254.1.1): 56 data bytes
^C--- 169.254.1.1 ping statistics ---
1 packets transmitted, 0 packets received, 100% packet loss
So I am unsure as to your description of the issue you have. 169.254.1.1 is not routable.
Thanks
01-05-2017 06:14 AM
Hi Nicolas,
I understand the 169.254.xxx.xxx is non-routable in the Public network. Happens my customer uses 169.254.xxx.xxx in their Private Internal Production network for their servers hosts heart-beat purpose. This clashes with APIC-EM LXC network addresses range. Later, we setup the APIC-EM in an isolated network and the issue is resolved.
Now customer would like to know anyway to change the IP network address & range in the APIC-EM LXC network?
regards
01-05-2017 06:21 AM
Hi,
Dont think change of IP subnet is supported...
From what I understand LXC address space is already isolated on APIC-EM. If your customer uses this subnet for servers heartbeat network only (isolated as well) there probably should be an issue. I could imagine it might have consequenses only when network devices use IPs from 169.254/16 subnet.
Misha
02-05-2017 08:13 AM
Hi Misha,
Thank you for your reply.
Hope this can be consider as a new feature on the future roadmap...
regards
Steven
02-05-2017 10:16 AM
Hi Steven,
you can click on the "I wish this page would..." at the bottom of the controller UI to request enhancements.
That will pop open an email to send to the product management team.
Someone from the product management team will get back to you on this.
Adam
02-13-2017 04:07 AM
Hi Adam,
Thank you very much for swift response.
regards
Steven
Discover and save your favorite ideas. Come back to expert answers, step-by-step guides, recent topics, and more.
New here? Get started with these tips. How to use Community New member guide