beta 6 networking problem

One thing I have noticed is that the Parallels Host-Guest Adapter is getting a bogus IP address from DHCP. My home network is in the range 10.0.1.xxx and the subnet mask should be 255.255.255.0 but the Parallels Adapter on the Mac OS side gets an address of 10.37.129.2 every time. I am pretty sure my router is not giving it this address.

Anyone else see the same IP address and think this is odd?
 
netdog said:
I just assigned the DNS Server to my Gateway IP and it seems to work now. I had thought that DNS had to come from the service provider.
Click to expand...

Good tip - I went digging for my provider's DNS settings! :)
 
If your router and modem are integrated, I don't think you need your ISPs DNS Server IPs (much to my suprise). Entering the local IP for your gateway (usually 192.168.1.1 or 192.168.0.1, depending on your network) as your DNS Server seems to work. I guess that the modem/router handles the translation.
 
Last edited:
vamp07 said:
So far those interfaces have not caused any problems at least not on the MAC side of things. Why should the user be warned?
Click to expand...

By this rationale, the user should be warned only if the 2 new interfaces have caused problems in the past?


vamp07 said:
Installing interfaces is exactly what vmware does. This is not a simple text editor. This program is pretty low level and installing things like networking interfaces is to be expected.
Click to expand...

I've disabled both the interfaces, and networking in the virtual machine continues to work, which suggests that the installation of 2 new network interfaces were optional. It would seem a good idea to inform the owner of the machine that these 2 optional new network interfaces were being installed; if not make them options during the installation procedure.

Surely there are ramifications, real or imagined, of having unnecessary sofware installed on a Mac OS X machine -- especially in the networking control panel.

This is only beta software, and therefore may not reflect the quality of the final installer; hence I suppose this is both a criticism and a suggestion to the Parallels team.

Otherwise, this is an awesome piece of work, and only $40. Cheaper than some shareware.
 
Guys (who have a complaining tone).... this is Beta code, and we are part of beta testing here.... this is the medium to break and fix things. If you're using this in a production environment and your apps in the VM depend on ANYTHING, complain to yerself. Now, trying to find, document, fix/workaround, and post these findings... that's good beta tester etiquette :)
And BRAVO for Parallels for putting out this app for that unbelievable price! Have you seen the price of the "other guy"??? And they don't support OS X at all.
Really impressed that winderz seems to run FASTER in the Paralells VM than natively on an wintel box!
Adlerburg
 
Last edited:
Adlerburg said:
Guys (who have a complaining tone).... this is Beta code, and we are part of beta testing here.... this is the medium to break and fix things. If you're using this in a production environment and your apps in the VM depend on ANYTHING, complain to yerself. Now, trying to find, document, fix/workaround, and post these findings... that's good beta tester etiquette :)
And BRAVO for Parallels for putting out this app for that unbelievable price! Have you seen the price of the "other guy"??? And they don't support OS X at all.
Really impressed that winderz seems to run FASTER in the Paralells VM than natively on an wintel box!
Adlerburg
Click to expand...
Different companies mean different things when they release "public betas" - compare Adobe Lightroom, which is rock solid and stable and the team is looking for feature ideas from their future customers - the downside: months between beta releases.

On the other hand, Parallels gave us a very cool product that has a few quirks to work around and betas at a weekly or better pace. I'm happy with either approach.

The speed of Parallels is impressive - using VT is a major differentiator against their competition, no doubt. And so far the issues I have run into have either had work arounds or were fixed in the next beta. I'll admit that the networking / DHCP issues will have to be one of the "fixed in the next beta" type as I can't use the workaround in my work environment.

But hey, that's what this type of beta testing is about - overall the improvements between betas have been very impressive.

Great job, Parallels!
 
Is Internet Sharing fighting with Parallels?

Ditto the networking troubles observed elsewhere.

I wonder if parallels and OSX Internet Sharing are fighting to assign leases? I say this because the one time it DID work for me, Internet Sharing had assigned IPs in the 192.168.2/24, whereas when things don't work I am in the 10.37.129.x range (and, intriguingly, in successively higher IP numbers, .1, .2, 3, .4 as I reboot the guest -- even when I have limited the range in the DHCP preferences tab per the forum instructions).

Lemme give this a try with a wired connection a sec. (See next post).
 
OK, I switched to my wired connection just now, and got the same problem. Assigned in the 10. range, which fits with what ifconfig -a reports for en2, but of course sharing is nonfunctional.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top