cloud access only works for Nexus 9kv

Before posting something, READ the changelog, WATCH the videos, howto and provide following:
Your install is: Bare metal, ESXi, what CPU model, RAM, HD, what EVE version you have, output of the uname -a and any other info that might help us faster.

Moderator: mike

Post Reply
smelton
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2017 2:29 pm

cloud access only works for Nexus 9kv

Post by smelton » Mon Aug 21, 2017 12:40 pm

I haven't seen a post with a similar issue.
Server is Ubuntu 16.04, 64-bit. Hardware is UCS B200-M2 that was previously used for ESXi.
I am having trouble accessing devices externally except for the Nexus 9kv switch. I have tried ASAv, IOL router, and Juniper vMX.
I have tried connecting the management interfaces to pnet0. When I do this, I can ping and receive ARPs for other devices on the same bridge, but nothing external. But the 9kv switches work fine.
I have manually set the NIC in the server and the bridge interface to promiscuous mode, but that did not work.
I have tried setting the bridge ageing to 0, but that did not work.
Using tcpdump on the EVE-NG server, I see the pings, ARPs, and ssh packets being sent to the endpoints but when I capture the management traffic on the virtual devices, I do not see it.
I set up a 9kv for the sole purpose to NAT the management interfaces. Now I can ping the IPs through the cloud interface but ssh and http access still do not work from outside the EVE-NG server.
Does anyone know of any setting that I might have missed or place I can look to troubleshoot this?

ramindia
Posts: 409
Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2017 10:27 pm

Re: cloud access only works for Nexus 9kv

Post by ramindia » Mon Aug 21, 2017 6:40 pm

smelton wrote:
Mon Aug 21, 2017 12:40 pm
I haven't seen a post with a similar issue.
Server is Ubuntu 16.04, 64-bit. Hardware is UCS B200-M2 that was previously used for ESXi.
I am having trouble accessing devices externally except for the Nexus 9kv switch. I have tried ASAv, IOL router, and Juniper vMX.
I have tried connecting the management interfaces to pnet0. When I do this, I can ping and receive ARPs for other devices on the same bridge, but nothing external. But the 9kv switches work fine.
I have manually set the NIC in the server and the bridge interface to promiscuous mode, but that did not work.
I have tried setting the bridge ageing to 0, but that did not work.
Using tcpdump on the EVE-NG server, I see the pings, ARPs, and ssh packets being sent to the endpoints but when I capture the management traffic on the virtual devices, I do not see it.
I set up a 9kv for the sole purpose to NAT the management interfaces. Now I can ping the IPs through the cloud interface but ssh and http access still do not work from outside the EVE-NG server.
Does anyone know of any setting that I might have missed or place I can look to troubleshoot this?
Post your topology,

Management work in different VRF context.

If you want other devices connected to Nexus ports and the device need to connect to outside , you need to put them right vlan , the port have Cloud0 access.

R!

smelton
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2017 2:29 pm

Re: cloud access only works for Nexus 9kv

Post by smelton » Thu Aug 24, 2017 2:05 pm

I am not trying to do anything complicated. I just want management access from a server on the same LAN as the EVE-NG server, to test automation scripts.
I attached the topology. The cloud is for pnet0. I deleted the other connections to make it easier to see.
I can only access the Nexus management interfaces from the external server. From the Nexus devices and the EVE-NG server, I can reach the other routers and ASA.
None of the rest of the devices learn the ARP even though I see the responses.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

ecze
Posts: 533
Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2017 1:54 pm

Re: cloud access only works for Nexus 9kv

Post by ecze » Thu Aug 24, 2017 8:54 pm

I don't see any problem with this topology.

Next step is to capture pnet0 interface and the port switch used to connect Eve.

E.

Post Reply