[u-u] VirtualBox and Vagrant
Greg A. Woods
woods at weird.com
Fri Dec 5 20:21:38 EST 2014
On 2014-12-05, at 3:59 PM, arocker at Vex.Net wrote:
>> From Greg:
>>> NAT implementation, where a TCP connection works.
>>> In any case, the safest test is HTTP, or at least "telnet -n N.N.N.N 80"
> That variant of telnet seems slightly different than the one I just had to
> install, -n signifies "create the tracefile", and used the address as the
Sorry, I meant '-N', just to avoid the DNS lookup timeout, if any.
> "telnet 10.0.2.15 80" produced
> Trying 10.0.2.15...
> telnet: connect to address 10.0.2.15: No route to host
> BTW, how does telnet decide which interface to use? The host machine has a
> wireless interface and a wired one, (plus localhost, of course).
Telnet usually doesn't know/care. It just asks to connect to the
How did your virtual machine acquire that address?
The host machine doesn't seem to know a route to the virtual machine.
But if you could SSH to the virtual machine, then it must have worked
properly at one point.
There's no difference between SSH opening a connection and telnet or
a web browser opening a connection. It's all just opening a socket
and issuing a connect call, with TCP under the hood and IP in the TCP.
If your VM's interface config is set up as a "bridged adapter" then
your VM should acquire its address in the same way as your host machine
does -- they are essentially on the same network (via the virtual
However the no-route error suggests the net or subnet of the VM
(10.0.2.15/???) is different from the host machine, but it shouldn't
be (unless your network config is far more complex than it probably
has to be, at least for this job)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 243 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
More information about the u-u