[u-u] VirtualBox and Vagrant

[Greg A. Woods]

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
> filename.

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
desired destination.

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
bridge).

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)

-- 
						Greg.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 243 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <https://unixunanimous.org/pipermail/u-u/attachments/20141205/3e82787e/attachment.bin>