Posted February 23, 2015 Hello, we are trying to solve a situation where the game servers stopped talking to eachother during the last restart. It seems a recent update in the debian operating system changed functionality of the virtual network interfaces we use. In case anyone here is knowledgeable about debian (wheezy) and networking/routing please join #wurm in irc. I'll describe the problem in a post below. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 23, 2015 Nappy might he said he was a network guy Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 23, 2015 I hope Debian isn't as bad as trying to get Windows 7 to talk to Windows 8.1 or I really feel your pain, Rolf. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 23, 2015 isn't it something like this? http://serverfault.com/questions/515020/gateway-lost-after-upgrade-to-wheezy Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 23, 2015 Could be Jaz, The following is our setup. I'll see if that post helps though. /etc/network/interfaces # device: eth0auto eth0auto eth0:0iface eth0:0 inet static address 192.168.45.199 broadcast 192.168.45.255 netmask 255.255.255.0 network 192.168.45.0 routeKernel IP routing tableDestination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Ifacedefault static.193.21.2 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0148.251.21.192 static.193.21.2 255.255.255.224 UG 0 0 0 eth0148.251.21.192 * 255.255.255.224 U 0 0 0 eth0192.168.45.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 ping 192.168.45.198PING 192.168.45.198 (192.168.45.198) 56(84) bytes of data.From 192.168.45.199 icmp_seq=1 Destination Host Unreachableetc Obviously this has worked before. Question is whether the route to 192.168.45.0 should go via eth0:0 and how to do that. I triedroute add 192.168.45.0 dev eth0:0but it didn't bite. Still became via eth0. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 23, 2015 My bad I'm only barking at networking in linux but hope we have others with much deeper knowledge Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 23, 2015 I read the title and got my hopes up that something was being done about Hetzner, I guess I should have known better :/ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 23, 2015 Mine is set up as # Auto generated lo interfaceauto loiface lo inet loopback # Auto generated venet0 interfaceauto venet0iface venet0 inet manual up ifconfig venet0 up up ifconfig venet0 127.0.0.2 up route add default dev venet0 down route del default dev venet0 down ifconfig venet0 down iface venet0 inet6 manual up ifconfig venet0 add 2607:5300:100:200::1585/56 down ifconfig venet0 del 2607:5300:100:200::1585/56 up route -A inet6 add default dev venet0 down route -A inet6 del default dev venet0 auto venet0:0iface venet0:0 inet static address 167.114.144.206 netmask 255.255.255.0 All my stuffs done through venet instead of eth. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 23, 2015 Hmmmm tried renaming eth0:0 to a more simple eth1 or such? Seems like that ":0" isn't making sense to your system after the upgrade. http://www.debianhelp.co.uk/udev.htm <--- how to rename http://serverfault.com/questions/666239/routing-with-multiple-nics-on-debian <-- may help check syntaxes a bit Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 23, 2015 My opinion is that ":0" after the "0" is the problem in that case. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 23, 2015 Hi, im not guru in linux and maybe i will be wrong, but what about firewall rules? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 23, 2015 the ":0" is supposed to be like that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 23, 2015 can try to compare changed files with backup? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 23, 2015 auto lo iface lo inet loopback auto eth0iface eth0 inet static address 74.91.120.251 netmask 255.255.255.0 gateway 74.91.120.254 dns-nameservers 8.8.8.8 8.8.4.4 My other debian machine. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 23, 2015 Maybe you should try with ip command instead of route Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 23, 2015 (edited) If you are using the interface files to manually setup the network interfaces. Should the config not be this? auto eth0:0 iface eth0:0 address 192.168.45.199 netmask 255.255.255.0 This would setup a ipv4 interface through the /etc/network/interfaces file. Edited February 23, 2015 by Phoe Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 23, 2015 the ":0" is supposed to be like that. Virtual card? If not renaming the damn thing to "eth2" may slap the system into telling them apart again. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 23, 2015 We already use eth0 for the public ip. eth0:0 is a virtual interface for the subnet which has stopped working for some reason. From what I understand eth1 and eth2 would be other physical interfaces and wouldn't work. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 23, 2015 We have been getting exactly the same issue today in work (with a debian server). Are you running dnsmasq on the server? I fixed it by temporarily disabling it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 23, 2015 Please only post if you are helping with the problem, any trolling here will result in moderation actions against your account. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 23, 2015 Interesting bfourie, not sure what dnsmasque is but it's not something we use though. It shouldn't be related to dns either, since we just ping ip addresses on a local subnet. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 23, 2015 Seeing you added this:route add 192.168.45.0 dev eth0:0 Seeing this slightly different syntax on some sitesip route add 192.168.45.0 dev eth0:0 *points to "ip" at the beginning* http://serverfault.com/questions/339851/virtual-interfaces-with-default-routes this seems to dig into the affair with some more detail. Hope I'm not slowing you down, feel free to say "go away 'draug" if so, i won't be offended ;-P Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 23, 2015 Not sure if this helps, but found this security update from yesterday Feb 22:https://www.debian.org/security/2015/dsa-3166 says: We recommend that you upgrade your e2fsprogs packages. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 23, 2015 (edited) Rolf Have you tried to set another virtual network card like eth0:2 and route traffic through it?Is there an option to do a rollback on servers, so you can enable gaming and study that issue on test environment? UPD: have you checked your eth0:0 configuration? Are you sure that it is not in some VLAN? Edited February 23, 2015 by vasisuelle Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
