eth(x) to MAC assignment arbitrary

[vanDivX]

I tried to reassign eth(x) to physical NICs as per Udo's advice given on this forum a while back and it doesn't work, respectively it reassigns eth numbers in arbitrary fashion.

I followed this advice:

Udo: you can order your NICs like you want.

Just edit /etc/udev/rules.d/70-persistent-net.rules and reboot after that.
Udev will rename you NICs during boot - you can see with "dmesg | grep eth".

I have only changed the numbering of 'eth' in 70-persistent-net.rules file and it did result in some changes but only some were as desired.

Then I have completely reordered lines in that 70-persistent-net.rules file and that again made some changes but again not as desired. Its upsetting not having any control over things.

I have two onboard NICs and two double port NICs added, for total of six physical ethernet ports.

Right now my 70-persistent-net.rules file shows desired state but if I do "dmesg | grep eth" I see different result there. I rebooted twice after doing the changes.

70-persistent-net.rules

# This file was automatically generated by the /lib/udev/write_net_rules
# program, run by the persistent-net-generator.rules rules file.
#
# You can modify it, as long as you keep each rule on a single
# line, and change only the value of the NAME= key.


# PCI device 0x14e4:0x163b (bnx2)
SUBSYSTEM=="net", ACTION=="add", DRIVERS=="?*", ATTR{address}=="a4:ba:db:2c:b9:4b", ATTR{dev_id}=="0x0", ATTR{type}=="1", KERNEL=="eth*", NAME="eth0"

# PCI device 0x14e4:0x163b (bnx2)
SUBSYSTEM=="net", ACTION=="add", DRIVERS=="?*", ATTR{address}=="a4:ba:db:2c:b9:4c", ATTR{dev_id}=="0x0", ATTR{type}=="1", KERNEL=="eth*", NAME="eth1"

# PCI device 0x8086:0x10c9 (igb)
SUBSYSTEM=="net", ACTION=="add", DRIVERS=="?*", ATTR{address}=="00:1b:21:5d:5d:90", ATTR{dev_id}=="0x0", ATTR{type}=="1", KERNEL=="eth*", NAME="eth2"

# PCI device 0x8086:0x10c9 (igb)
SUBSYSTEM=="net", ACTION=="add", DRIVERS=="?*", ATTR{address}=="00:1b:21:5d:5d:91", ATTR{dev_id}=="0x0", ATTR{type}=="1", KERNEL=="eth*", NAME="eth3"

# PCI device 0x8086:0x105e (e1000e)
SUBSYSTEM=="net", ACTION=="add", DRIVERS=="?*", ATTR{address}=="00:1f:29:5f:ab:42", ATTR{dev_id}=="0x0", ATTR{type}=="1", KERNEL=="eth*", NAME="eth4"

# PCI device 0x8086:0x105e (e1000e)
SUBSYSTEM=="net", ACTION=="add", DRIVERS=="?*", ATTR{address}=="00:1f:29:5f:ab:43", ATTR{dev_id}=="0x0", ATTR{type}=="1", KERNEL=="eth*", NAME="eth5"

root@proxmox:~# dmesg | grep eth

bnx2 0000:02:00.0: eth0: Broadcom NetXtreme II BCM5716 1000Base-T (C0) PCI Expre ss found at mem d8000000, IRQ 16, node addr a4:ba:db:2c:b9:4b
bnx2 0000:02:00.1: eth1: Broadcom NetXtreme II BCM5716 1000Base-T (C0) PCI Expre ss found at mem da000000, IRQ 17, node addr a4:ba:db:2c:b9:4c

e1000e 0000:05:00.0: eth2: (PCI Express:2.5GT/s:Width x4) 00:1f:29:5f:ab:42
e1000e 0000:05:00.0: eth2: Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Connection
e1000e 0000:05:00.0: eth2: MAC: 1, PHY: 4, PBA No: D51930-004

igb 0000:04:00.0: eth3: (PCIe:2.5GT/s:Width x4
igb 0000:04:00.0: eth3: MAC: 00:1b:21:5d:5d:90
igb 0000:04:00.0: eth3: PBA No: E43709-003

e1000e 0000:05:00.1: eth4: (PCI Express:2.5GT/s:Width x4) 00:1f:29:5f:ab:43
e1000e 0000:05:00.1: eth4: Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Connection
e1000e 0000:05:00.1: eth4: MAC: 1, PHY: 4, PBA No: D51930-004

igb 0000:04:00.1: eth5: (PCIe:2.5GT/s:Width x4
igb 0000:04:00.1: eth5: MAC: 00:1b:21:5d:5d:91
igb 0000:04:00.1: eth5: PBA No: E43709-003

udev[460]: renamed network interface eth2 to eth2-eth4
udev[461]: renamed network interface eth4 to eth4-eth5
udev[447]: renamed network interface eth5 to eth5-eth3
udev[445]: renamed network interface eth3 to eth2

ACPI Error (psparse-0537): Method parse/execution failed [\_SB_.PMI0._GHL] (Node ffff88023f0aff60), AE_AML_BUFFER_LIMIT
ACPI Error (psparse-0537): Method parse/execution failed [\_SB_.PMI0._PMC] (Node ffff88023f0af420), AE_AML_BUFFER_LIMIT

udev[460]: renamed network interface eth2-eth4 to eth4
udev[461]: renamed network interface eth4-eth5 to eth5
udev[447]: renamed network interface eth5-eth3 to eth3

device eth0 entered promiscuous mode
bnx2 0000:02:00.0: eth0: using MSIX
ADDRCONF(NETDEV_UP): eth0: link is not ready
bnx2 0000:02:00.0: eth0: NIC Copper Link is Up, 1000 Mbps full duplex, receive & transmit flow control ON
vmbr0: port 1(eth0) entering forwarding state
ADDRCONF(NETDEV_CHANGE): eth0: link becomes ready
eth0: no IPv6 routers present

root@proxmox:~#

I suppose I can live with installation default 'eth' assignment to physical NIC ports, I just thought to make it more logical.
The onboard ports are fine, they get eth0 and eth1 but then one NIC card gets asigned eth2&5 and the other eth3&4 ) for example. My idea was to have the first added NIC given eth2&3 and the other eth4&5 but that seems like too much to ask as it turns up. Or am I doing something wrong?

 

[e100]

According to your output it looks like everything is named just as you specified in the udev rules.
They are first detected and named in the order they are detected, then udev renames them according to the rules:

eth0:

# PCI device 0x14e4:0x163b (bnx2)
SUBSYSTEM=="net", ACTION=="add", DRIVERS=="?*",  ATTR{address}=="a4:ba:db:2c:b9:4b", ATTR{dev_id}=="0x0",  ATTR{type}=="1", KERNEL=="eth*", NAME="eth0"
[B] bnx2 0000:02:00.0: eth0: Broadcom NetXtreme  node  addr a4:ba:db:2c:b9:4b[/B]

eth1:

# PCI device 0x14e4:0x163b (bnx2)
SUBSYSTEM=="net", ACTION=="add", DRIVERS=="?*",  ATTR{address}=="a4:ba:db:2c:b9:4c", ATTR{dev_id}=="0x0",  ATTR{type}=="1", KERNEL=="eth*", NAME="eth1"
[B] bnx2 0000:02:00.1: eth1: Broadcom NetXtreme  node  addr a4:ba:db:2c:b9:4c[/B]

eth2:

# PCI device 0x8086:0x10c9 (igb)
SUBSYSTEM=="net", ACTION=="add", DRIVERS=="?*",  ATTR{address}=="00:1b:21:5d:5d:90", ATTR{dev_id}=="0x0",  ATTR{type}=="1", KERNEL=="eth*", NAME="eth2"
igb 0000:04:00.0: eth3: MAC: 00:1b:21:5d:5d:90
[B]udev[445]: renamed network interface eth3 to eth2[/B]

eth3:

# PCI device 0x8086:0x10c9 (igb)
SUBSYSTEM=="net", ACTION=="add", DRIVERS=="?*",  ATTR{address}=="00:1b:21:5d:5d:91", ATTR{dev_id}=="0x0",  ATTR{type}=="1", KERNEL=="eth*", NAME="eth3"
igb 0000:04:00.1: eth5: MAC: 00:1b:21:5d:5d:91
 udev[447]: renamed network interface eth5 to eth5-eth3
[B] udev[447]: renamed network interface eth5-eth3 to eth3[/B]

eth4:

# PCI device 0x8086:0x105e (e1000e)
SUBSYSTEM=="net", ACTION=="add", DRIVERS=="?*",  ATTR{address}=="00:1f:29:5f:ab:42", ATTR{dev_id}=="0x0",  ATTR{type}=="1", KERNEL=="eth*", NAME="eth4"
e1000e 0000:05:00.0: eth2: (PCI Express:2.5GT/s:Width x4) 00:1f:29:5f:ab:42
 udev[460]: renamed network interface eth2 to eth2-eth4
[B] udev[460]: renamed network interface eth2-eth4 to eth4[/B]

eth5:

# PCI device 0x8086:0x105e (e1000e)
SUBSYSTEM=="net", ACTION=="add", DRIVERS=="?*",  ATTR{address}=="00:1f:29:5f:ab:43", ATTR{dev_id}=="0x0",  ATTR{type}=="1", KERNEL=="eth*", NAME="eth5"
 e1000e 0000:05:00.1: eth4: (PCI Express:2.5GT/s:Width x4) 00:1f:29:5f:ab:43
 udev[461]: renamed network interface eth4 to eth4-eth5
[B] udev[461]: renamed network interface eth4-eth5 to eth5[/B]

 

[vanDivX]

Well then I must be misunderstanding all this business of 'ordering NICs like you want'. I expected after reboot to see the change when I run thedmesg | grep ethcommand but I don't see it, or more exactly I see some changes have been made but not how I wanted them to be. I expected to see desired eth#s with desired MACs but that is not the case, I don't see where you got your lines from my post.
Of course they are right inside the 70-persistent-net.rules file because that's the file I edited, not Proxmox. Proxmox should reflect those changes of mine in the dmesg | grep eth output after reboot - but it does not!



I thought I would just follow the advice given inside that '70-persistent-net.rules' file at the top where it says in particular "change only the value of the NAME= key."

I take that to mean that I can only change the part which I colored blue in the line below and in particular only the number which I gave red color in there.


# PCI device 0x14e4:0x163b (bnx2)
SUBSYSTEM=="net", ACTION=="add", DRIVERS=="?*", ATTR{address}=="a4:ba:db:2c:b9:4b", ATTR{dev_id}=="0x0", ATTR{type}=="1", KERNEL=="eth*", NAME="eth0"

I switched around the values of the red numbers, saved the changed file and rebooted and checked the result... I expected to find that desired MAC numbers will be associated with the assigned eth# value but that is not the case as far as I understand it.

You can tell which two MAC #s belong together because double port NICs always have the same MAC on both ports and only difference is in the last digit. The current assignment is the digits in red color but I wanted the values in green color:

-------------------------

Onboard NIC 'bnx2' [Broadcom NetXtreme II BCM5716] dual 1GB ports

a4:ba:db:2c:b9:4b eth0 0
a4:ba:db:2c:b9:4c eth1 1

-------------------------

1st NIC 'igb' [E1G42ET] dual 1GB ports

00:1b:21:5d:5d:90 eth3 2
00:1b:21:5d:5d:91 eth5 3

------------------------

2nd NIC 'e1000e' [HP NC360T] dual 1GB ports


00:1f:29:5f:ab:42 eth2 4
00:1f:29:5f:ab:43 eth4 5

------------------------


Also I don't quite get what these lines mean:

udev[460]: renamed network interface eth2 to eth2-eth4
.
.
udev[460]: renamed network interface eth2-eth4 to eth4

I suppose it a way of saying that it renamed eth2 to eth4 in these two steps.

===
I edited the quoted input from my original post to insert empty lines between its sections.

 

[e100]

You are wrong about the red and green color assignments, the nics are named according to the green colors just like you specified in the udev rules.

In my previous post I took the output from your kernel messages and grouped it nicely to show you that it is indeed working properly and assigning the proper name to each device just as you specified in the udev rules.

The kernel assigns the names ethX in the order they are DETECTED.
Next udev RENAMES them according to the rules.

This is an example of udev renaming the detected eth2 to eth4:

udev[460]: renamed network interface eth2 to eth2-eth4
udev[460]: renamed network interface eth2-eth4 to eth4

using your red and green colors:

00:1f:29:5f:ab:4[COLOR=#008000][B]2[/B][/COLOR] [COLOR=#0000ff]eth[/COLOR][COLOR=#ff0000][B]2[/B][/COLOR] [COLOR=#006400][B] 4
[/B][/COLOR]udev[460]: renamed network interface [COLOR=#0000ff]eth[/COLOR][COLOR=#ff0000]2[/COLOR] to eth2-eth4
udev[460]: renamed network interface eth2-eth4 to [COLOR=#0000ff]eth[/COLOR][B][COLOR=#008000]4[/COLOR][/B]

See how eth2, was renamed to eth4, just like you desired?

 

[vanDivX]

OK I will have to think about it. I just don't get it.
Those udev lines (udev[460]: renamed network interface eth2 to eth2-eth4) I take it are simply telling me what was done during reboot and the result of that action should show up above in that file where eth#s are associated with MAC #s of NIC ports. Mind you I am linux beginner, like I have no idea what 'udev' is short for, or what it is, I suppose its some manager in linux that handles stuff, in this case renaming...

One reason I go into this renaming business is logic and neatness, the other and more important is I want to run ClearOS which is a router/firewall and it needs its own exclusive use of two physical NIC ports for WAN & LAN and it goes without saying it would be good idea if I knew what I was doing when assigning how it will connect... the way I see it, the eth#s are just pointers to MAC numbers, that is each eth# could as well be MAC# (which in turn denotes physical NIC port) except that it is more convenient to write eth# rather than twelve digits.

I would make two bridges, assign each to diifferent eth# belonging to my best Intel dual port NIC (and use the server onboard dual ports for all other VMs) and then in ClearOS VM setup I would select those two bridges - vmbr2 (associated with eth2) & vmbr3 (associated with eth3) for use by that VM. And the idea is that the ClearOS VM would this way be tied to couple MACs, that is to definite physical ethernet ports of that Intel NIC, one of which would then be used as WAN (I have static public IP from my ISP which I would enter in vmbr2 as IP? that is not as gateway IP? The gateway would be ISP's gateway IP I suppose which is 192.168.1.1) and the other as LAN (to which I would assign static private IP 192.168.1.1 and leave the gateway field empty) and plug that port into my switch to which all my physical computers as well all VM on P-VE via that onboard server port (which I would also plug into the switch and those VMs would connect to internet via that switch, through the LAN port on the server and out via WAN port...).
What I am worried about is that those VMs on P-VE could somehow be exposed to internet, that is bypass the ClearOS firewall if I don't configure things properly.

I have seen somewhere here on the forum how IP tables should be setup, to isolate WAN NIC I think, so that internet traffic has to go via the NIC ports assigned to ClearOS router/firewall but can't find that thread anymore. Probably that doesn't apply, in any case that would be beyond my capabilities to go about setting up IP tables on P-VE by hand.
And I have read the info on this link given here by tom http://pve.proxmox.com/wiki/SMEServer_KVM I must say I find it quite confusing, not sure if because SME server necessitates such confusion by its design or because the original eth# assignment was chosen bad way.

I can only wish somebody would finally publish some info describing how ClearOS is setup on P-VE, either by ClearOS people or Proxmox people... Clearly there is demand for that by many folks and the info that is supplied here and there doesn't really cut it, at least for us linux beginners. And the solution is not sending us to read linux 101 primer to become linux experts.



Right now I am experimenting with P-VE install on spare HDD so no harm is being done and I can reinstall if things don't work out.

 

[vanDivX]

I removed the second NIC. so that only onboard double ports plus one added double port NIC were left and got this result:

root@proxmox:~# dmesg | grep eth

bnx2 0000:02:00.0: eth0: Broadcom NetXtreme II BCM5716 1000Base-T (C0) PCI Express found at mem d8000000, IRQ 16, node addr a4:ba:db:2c:b9:4b
bnx2 0000:02:00.1: eth1: Broadcom NetXtreme II BCM5716 1000Base-T (C0) PCI Express found at mem da000000, IRQ 17, node addr a4:ba:db:2c:b9:4c

igb 0000:04:00.0: eth2: (PCIe:2.5GT/s:Width x4
igb 0000:04:00.0: eth2: MAC: 00:1b:21:5d:5d:90
igb 0000:04:00.0: eth2: PBA No: E43709-003

igb 0000:04:00.1: eth3: (PCIe:2.5GT/s:Width x4
igb 0000:04:00.1: eth3: MAC: 00:1b:21:5d:5d:91
igb 0000:04:00.1: eth3: PBA No: E43709-003

[here I have deleted info that is not relevant]

root@proxmox:~#

Then I plugged the second double port NIC back in and P-VE reshuffled them:

root@proxmox:~# dmesg | grep eth

bnx2 0000:02:00.0: eth0: Broadcom NetXtreme II BCM5716 1000Base-T (C0) PCI Express found at mem d8000000, IRQ 16, node addr a4:ba:db:2c:b9:4b
bnx2 0000:02:00.1: eth1: Broadcom NetXtreme II BCM5716 1000Base-T (C0) PCI Express found at mem da000000, IRQ 17, node addr a4:ba:db:2c:b9:4c

e1000e 0000:05:00.0: eth2: (PCI Express:2.5GT/s:Width x4) 00:1f:29:5f:ab:42
e1000e 0000:05:00.0: eth2: Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Connection
e1000e 0000:05:00.0: eth2: MAC: 1, PHY: 4, PBA No: D51930-004

igb 0000:04:00.0: eth3: (PCIe:2.5GT/s:Width x4
igb 0000:04:00.0: eth3: MAC: 00:1b:21:5d:5d:90
igb 0000:04:00.0: eth3: PBA No: E43709-003

e1000e 0000:05:00.1: eth4: (PCI Express:2.5GT/s:Width x4) 00:1f:29:5f:ab:43
e1000e 0000:05:00.1: eth4: Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Connection
e1000e 0000:05:00.1: eth4: MAC: 1, PHY: 4, PBA No: D51930-004

igb 0000:04:00.1: eth5: (PCIe:2.5GT/s:Width x4
igb 0000:04:00.1: eth5: MAC: 00:1b:21:5d:5d:91
igb 0000:04:00.1: eth5: PBA No: E43709-003

udev[460]: renamed network interface eth2 to eth2-eth4
udev[461]: renamed network interface eth4 to eth4-eth5
udev[447]: renamed network interface eth5 to eth5-eth3
udev[445]: renamed network interface eth3 to eth2


udev[460]: renamed network interface eth2-eth4 to eth4
udev[461]: renamed network interface eth4-eth5 to eth5
udev[447]: renamed network interface eth5-eth3 to eth3

[here I have deleted info that is not relevant]

root@proxmox:~#

 

[vanDivX]

I did something which confirms I don't understand networking on P-VE

I have server with P-VE installed and I connect to it via the bridge it created for me during installation. That bridge, vmbr0 is assigned eth0 and I connect to P-VE webinterface on the static IP 192.168.1.2:8006 via ethernet cable plugged into onboard NIC port A. So far so good.

Now I made second bridge vmbr1 and assigned eth1 to it which should be onboard NIC port B. I assigned IP 192.168.1.200 to it but didn't plug ethernet wire into the onboard port B. Yet when I go to 192.168.1.200:8006 to my amazement I connect to Proxmox. This means I don't understand first thing about using NIC port of my choice, apparently its all arbitrary. I thought to connect on IP 192.168.1.200:8006 I would need to go in via port B of onboard NIC. But apparently that is false thinking.

How is it done when you want to have a VM use a particular physical ethernet port? If I knew that I would understand the above renaming I suppose.

I vaguely suspect connecting to P-VE is different from connecting to VMs running inside it. But I have no clear concept how different.

 

[e100]

It likely only works because the IPs you assigned to A and B are in the same subnet and the kernel has forwarding enabled.
If they were different subnets I doubt it would work.

Nothing is arbitrary, things work a specific way depending on how they are configured.
You wanted your NICs named a specific way, you edited udev rules and udev made it so.

 

[vanDivX]

It likely only works because the IPs you assigned to A and B are in the same subnet and the kernel has forwarding enabled.
If they were different subnets I doubt it would work.

Thanks. The question then is - would this forwarding also work with VMs (KVM OpenVZ)? I suppose it would. Now I see why that discussion of setting up iptables on Proxmox host is vital (if one wants to run ClearOS router/firewall) but I can't find it anymore.

Can that forwarding be switched off? Are there iptables on Proxmox host or is that an 'addon' package? one has to install?

I assume that installing gateway router/firewall as Proxmox host would work as it should if as you say this forwarding works only on the same subnet. That means public internet traffic couldn't bypass it if it had a bridge assigned to it and that bridge was given the exclusive use of one eth# as I outlined in my previous post.

Nothing is arbitrary, things work a specific way depending on how they are configured.
You wanted your NICs named a specific way, you edited udev rules and udev made it so.

The way I see it, it did rename but not the way I wanted and that's why I feel I don't have control over things. Its arbitrary from the perspective of my mistaken expectations. But I still have to go and reexamine it given your reply above, right now I focused on that problem of channeling traffic via given physical NIC port interface. Renaming would be nice but really it is not essential.

 

[dietmar]

Can that forwarding be switched off?

Why do you assign a IP address to the second bridge?

 

[vanDivX]

Sorry for not replying sooner. These difficulties I have with Proxmox frustrate me that I always set it aside for few days after having a bout with it. But I do return as you see.
--------------------------

Well, why do I assign IP. Its just for excercise, to see how it works. Also to be able to try if I get to the webinterface - in which case I need to know which IP to input into the browser address bar. Else how would or could I test it?

I gather the input field for IP address is there when one desires static IP for the vmbr like when one wants to access that bridge from outside (from LAN) or more precisely the VM that is using it.

If it was described someplace how it all works (the networking in Proxomox I mean and I don't mean some reading like linux bible), I wouldn't have to be posting here about it or input IP and see what it does, its a trial error thing. I did not become in my past life linux guru and so now I have to keep asking and just try and see what this or that does. I have reinstalled proxmox so many times because my trials usually end up loosing access to webinterface.

In my naive past I imagined that one creates VM and there in setup would be drop down menu where one would see all his installed ethernet ports, cards named by manufacturer and ports A/B or how many ports the device had, and one would choose the one desired. Or as alternative one could create virtual bridge and assign it to particular physical port if one wanted several VMs to use that one port. But I now realize that was extremely naive. The next best thing would be some manual explaining this one important part of Proxmox or at least people able to explain things to non-gurus here. I didn't say willing to explain since you are willing, just not able to explain in the way that non-expert can understand.

 

[e100]

I know you do not want to read documentation, you have mentioned that a couple of times now. If you are not willing to educate yourself how do you expect to learn?

Do yourself a favor and get a copy of the Debian Administrators Handbook and start reading.
http://debian-handbook.info/

Lets be honest, if you want to learn Linux you need to learn some fundamentals and it truly is a waste of my time to regurgitate information that can be found in such excellent documentation like the Debian Administrators Handbook.

Also check out the Proxmox wiki http://pve.proxmox.com/wiki/Network_Model

 

[i-hotspots]

Hello to all of you ;P
I hope I am right here , don´t know whwere to start else.

I want to know how to setup a virtual LAN, I think for KVM i will need this cause they not connected direct to the NETWORK, please correct me if I am wrong )
I tried to find something but I dont know how to describe my search exactly.
HOW is a KVM reachable from WEB ?!
My Problem, I get 4 IPs MAX from my Server Provider, so I am thinking to creat machines internal with its own IP range BUT I dont get it HOW it will work, IT´s TO TECHNICALLY that I cant understand with my bad english ;P
PLEASE if someone could be SO NICE and advice me a little bit in the right way that I can realize this. (german is welcome)

Thank you so much
Andy ;P

 

[vanDivX]

I know you do not want to read documentation, you have mentioned that a couple of times now.

I meant it for documentation that is too general or documentation which is too specific - both extremes have their own disadvantages.

For example, that Debian handbook is too general (I suppose it applies because Proxmox is based on Debian linux?) although I did find some useful info in it after an hour reading the relevant networking sections.

And the WIKI page while nice leaves lots of things unsaid. And it goes fast into VLANs and such advanced stuff.


BTW that line 'bridge_fd 0' means that the forwarding we talked about is OFF? I can only wish they would explain things like this. Also they confuse me by talking about public IPs 192.168.10.x because that's private IP used on LAN behind router (and so is 10.10.x.x I believe)...

A common setup is a public IP (assume 192.168.10.2 for this example), and additional IP blocks for your VMs (10.10.10.1/255.255.255.0).

Anyway they lost me here and that page leaves too much unsaid anyway. But that's as it may be, I am not asking you to make sense of this for me, just giving you example of the difficulties we beginners face.


Slowly bit by bit I am getting there. Help I get from you guys helps in the way that it pushes me to help myself and in that way you are actually helping me, indirectly
Thanks for the links.

BTW can MAC of NIC interface be changed easily in Proxmox? When I order static public IP from my ISP I have to specify MAC # that I will be using it with.
The VM connecting to that public IP will be the ClearOS I mentioned above and I have already found on their forum that MAC is hard to change within ClearOS. And besides what counts with my ISP is only the physical NIC port MAC # I believe.

So is there some file where I could enter the MAC# I want even if its different from the one given by NIC manufacturer? I mean for the case when later on I do not succeed to make given NIC ethernet port my WAN port for whatever reason. I believe I can always ask the ISP to map the IP to another MAC but it would be nice also to be able to do it from my end.