Virtual Machines

Geodark

I run several VMs as part of my job, but unless it's to run outdated software or get access to different operating systems I can't see the benefit of using one at home for your average user. As someone has already said - you don't need VMs to dual screen.

spud17

securityguy wrote: »

That's not quite right. If you run NAT on the host, which is the standard set up, then the guests have separate IP numbers on a network which is internal to the host machine. They're all NAT'd to the address of the host as they are routed on to your local network, and then NAT'd again when they leave your local network for the Internet (assuming you're NAT'd at that point).

If you want each guest VM to have a separate IP number on the local network, so that you can (for example) ssh/rdp/vnc in to the guest from elsewhere on the local network, then you need the host to bridge, not NAT.

I play around with a few VMs, (I'm always trying to learn something).
If I've understood you correctly, this is why my VMs have addresses in the 10.0.0.* range while the main network is 192.168.0.*

esuhl

securityguy wrote: »

That's not quite right. If you run NAT on the host, which is the standard set up, then the guests have separate IP numbers on a network which is internal to the host machine. They're all NAT'd to the address of the host as they are routed on to your local network, and then NAT'd again when they leave your local network for the Internet (assuming you're NAT'd at that point).

If you want each guest VM to have a separate IP number on the local network, so that you can (for example) ssh/rdp/vnc in to the guest from elsewhere on the local network, then you need the host to bridge, not NAT.

Ohhh yeah -- you're right! :T Ooops!

spud17 wrote: »

I play around with a few VMs, (I'm always trying to learn something).
If I've understood you correctly, this is why my VMs have addresses in the 10.0.0.* range while the main network is 192.168.0.*

Yup -- that seems to be what's happening on my VMs.

debitcardmayhem

spud17 wrote: »

I play around with a few VMs, (I'm always trying to learn something).
If I've understood you correctly, this is why my VMs have addresses in the 10.0.0.* range while the main network is 192.168.0.*

Almost but your "main" home network is 192.168.*.* refer to rfc1918 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1918

Hi spud :beer:

securityguy

debitcardmayhem wrote: »

Almost but your "main" home network is 192.168.*.* refer to rfc1918 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1918

Hi spud :beer:

Actually, other than in the incredibly unlikely scenario of the netmask being narrowed, it's 192.168.0.0/24 (ie 192.168.0.*, informally). 192.168.*.* would imply 192.168/16, which is the block RFC1918 allocates, but that no-one would ever use in that form. If your router is 192.168.0.1, then a machine using 192.168.1.1 would almost certainly not be able to see if on the same LAN.

There are occasional reasons to use netmasks wider than /24 in 192.168/16 (for example, you might use /30 on a point-to-point link) but it would be very unusual to use 192.168/16 when you have 172.16/16 available for use.

spud17

debitcardmayhem wrote: »

Almost but your "main" home network is 192.168.*.* refer to rfc1918 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1918

Hi spud :beer:

Yes, but I was referring to my main network. :beer: