Thread Info
  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 6 replies
  • Subscribers 2 subscribers
  • Views 1816 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Suggested
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

9.2 Bug when installing UTM 9.2 software and choosing managment other than eth0

stealthmatt_01
Hi all,

I install asg-9.201-25.1.iso and For whatever reason if you choose the managment interface as something other than eth0 (first network port) during setup, The UTM software dosent properly configure the eth adapters.

For example, I have virtualised 4 eth adapaters going directly to 4 phtsical eth ports in esxi5.5 on a quad port intel network card (so I know the ports are what they are)

I want eth0 to be the external interface and eth1 to be the internal. So during setup I choose eth 1 (Second adapater). It installs and I can't connect to the web interface? strange....

At this stage I only have 2 physical cables plugged in on the card eth 0 (external - connected to modem) and eth 1 (internal - connected to my LAN).So I switched the physical cables around and now I can connect... the web admin says eth 1, but the underlying hardware is incorrect (its now eth 0 - when it should be eth1)

Ok so I configure the external interface on the UTM and it should be eth 0... but that doesnt work, no data or anything (cant get dhcp). So I figure what the hell and configure eth2 and what do you know it works???

So its a complete mess 
- UTM eth1 goes to eth 0 hardware??
- UTM eth 0 goes no where?? 
- UTM eth 2 now goes to eth 1 hardware?

WHAT THE HELL?

If I reinstall and  I choose eth0 as the webadmin/mangment/internal interface everything works as expected.... So in other words don't pick anything other than eth 0 for mangment/webadmin/internal
.


This thread was automatically locked due to age.
Parents
  • 0
    So no one else had or experienced this problem.... if someone has time to load up a fresh vm - give it a shot and see what im talking about
  • 0 in reply to stealthmatt_01
    This is no UTM related Problem, it is VMware.

    You have to change your virtual switch connection.

    Sven

    Astaro user since 2001 - Astaro/Sophos Partner since 2008

  • 0 in reply to maygyver
    Basically boils down to the way UTM allocates interfaces on VMware.  Once you figure out which interface is which, it is possible to edit the order by editing the udev rules (search this site, I posted something on this).

    CTO, Convergent Information Security Solutions, LLC

    https://www.convergesecurity.com

    Advice given as posted on this forum does not construe a support relationship or other relationship with Convergent Information Security Solutions, LLC or its subsidiaries.  Use the advice given at your own risk.

  • 0 in reply to BrucekConvergent
    But he is complaining about eth1 UTM is going to eth0 HW.

    In vmware it is called Networkadapter1, Networkadaptor2 ...
    Is the Networkadaptor1 connected to eth0 in UTM or is there a mismatch? (it is bad that vmware starts counting with 1) Then you have to change udev rules.

    Otherwise you just have to replug your virtual Network cable.


    Sven

    Astaro user since 2001 - Astaro/Sophos Partner since 2008

  • 0 in reply to maygyver
    Typically the UTM firmware establishes interfaces ordered by MAC address -- on VMware it does not follow any particular order (the script that handles this for some reason does not order them correctly)  No matter what he does, he will have some manual work to do sorting out which physical interface is eth0, etc. ... 

    It's the nature of the beast.

    CTO, Convergent Information Security Solutions, LLC

    https://www.convergesecurity.com

    Advice given as posted on this forum does not construe a support relationship or other relationship with Convergent Information Security Solutions, LLC or its subsidiaries.  Use the advice given at your own risk.

Reply
  • 0 in reply to maygyver
    Typically the UTM firmware establishes interfaces ordered by MAC address -- on VMware it does not follow any particular order (the script that handles this for some reason does not order them correctly)  No matter what he does, he will have some manual work to do sorting out which physical interface is eth0, etc. ... 

    It's the nature of the beast.

    CTO, Convergent Information Security Solutions, LLC

    https://www.convergesecurity.com

    Advice given as posted on this forum does not construe a support relationship or other relationship with Convergent Information Security Solutions, LLC or its subsidiaries.  Use the advice given at your own risk.

Children
  • 0 in reply to BrucekConvergent
    Typically the UTM firmware establishes interfaces ordered by MAC address -- on VMware it does not follow any particular order (the script that handles this for some reason does not order them correctly)  No matter what he does, he will have some manual work to do sorting out which physical interface is eth0, etc. ... 

    It's the nature of the beast.


    Ok this is probably what the problem is. 

    I have set of all the virtual switches to map the the physical interfaces with a 1 to 1 connection. I assumed that the Sophos UTM would understand which ethernet port correlates to the switches in vmware... obviously this makes sense as the UTM as no way of knowing as it just assigns however it thinks.
Cookie Information Banner