can't reach bridged guests - ssh on guest connects to host

[tjahn]

hello,

I have a problem connecting to guests. eg. when I ssh from host(192.168.1.16) to the guest (192.168.1.17)
instead the guest login i get the login from the host.

i have quite a simple network configuration on host:

root@pve:~# cat /etc/network/interfaces
auto lo
iface lo inet loopback

auto eno1
iface eno1 inet static
        address 192.168.1.16/24
        gateway 192.168.1.1

iface eno2 inet manual

auto vmbr0
iface vmbr0 inet static
        address 192.168.1.16/29
        gateway 192.168.1.1
        bridge-ports eno2
        bridge-stp off
        bridge-fd 0
root@pve:~#

root@pve:~# ip r
default via 192.168.1.1 dev eno1 proto kernel onlink
192.168.1.0/24 dev eno1 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.1.16
192.168.1.16/29 dev vmbr0 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.1.17
root@pve:~#

on the guest (ubuntu 20.04 with netplan)

# ip address
....
2: ens18: ....
inet 192.168.1.17/24 brd 192.168.1.255 scope global ens18

from there i have access to LAN and internet but not to the host on 192.168.1.16

the host is configured pretty much the same like another one in the same Network - but there's running everything as expected (IP Subnet 192.168.1.8/29)
i can ssh from host (192.168.1.8) to guest (192.168.1.9) and back again from guest to host
the only difference between the two hosts is: one is a pure proxmox installation and the other one (working) proxmox on top of debian

 

[Chris]

hello,

I have a problem connecting to guests. eg. when I ssh from host(192.168.1.16) to the guest (192.168.1.17)
instead the guest login i get the login from the host.

i have quite a simple network configuration on host:

root@pve:~# cat /etc/network/interfaces
auto lo
iface lo inet loopback

auto eno1
iface eno1 inet static
        address 192.168.1.16/24
        gateway 192.168.1.1

iface eno2 inet manual

auto vmbr0
iface vmbr0 inet static
        address 192.168.1.16/29
        gateway 192.168.1.1
        bridge-ports eno2
        bridge-stp off
        bridge-fd 0
root@pve:~#

root@pve:~# ip r
default via 192.168.1.1 dev eno1 proto kernel onlink
192.168.1.0/24 dev eno1 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.1.16
192.168.1.16/29 dev vmbr0 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.1.17
root@pve:~#

on the guest (ubuntu 20.04 with netplan)

# ip address
....
2: ens18: ....
inet 192.168.1.17/24 brd 192.168.1.255 scope global ens18

from there i have access to LAN and internet but not to the host on 192.168.1.16

the host is configured pretty much the same like another one in the same Network - but there's running everything as expected (IP Subnet 192.168.1.8/29)
i can ssh from host (192.168.1.8) to guest (192.168.1.9) and back again from guest to host
the only difference between the two hosts is: one is a pure proxmox installation and the other one (working) proxmox on top of debian

Hi,
you have duplicate IP addresses for the host with also different subnets, why are you not attaching the interface eno1 to the bridge and use the IP config on the bridge? Why did you define two different subnets Also, the default gateway should only be configured once, not twice.

 

[tjahn]

Hi,
you have duplicate IP addresses for the host with also different subnets, why are you not attaching the interface eno1 to the bridge and use the IP config on the bridge? Why did you define two different subnets Also, the default gateway should only be configured once, not twice.

the idea was to have one LAN-Port with a fixed IP for the host and another one connected to a bridge "for all the experiments"
i have to admit that i'm not so familiar with network-config/routing
as far as i've read 192.168.1.16/29 opens a subnet from .17 to .23 which is usable for clients, within the subnet-mask indicating that the clients are in the local network on the host. maybe i've completely misunderstood something here.

iface address 192.168.1.16/24 sets the IP for the network device to .16 with the whole subnet-mask.
maybe that's complete nonsense but on another server the same worked perfectly that way.
maybe you're right and i should overthink the role of subnet and gateway.. writing these lines i'm getting a clue, that i tried things i didn't understand..

 

[tjahn]

ok, just forget this, my initial plan was mixing up two completely different things. (maybe it's to hot these days for thinking)
in my case the bridge vmbr0 needs just one IP - the rest is transparent and up to the guests

solved