surebackup - different %vm_ip% since upgrade to v12

[mcz]

Hi everyone,

I'm having a surebackup-job, which fails since I've upgraded to v12. There is a vm which has two network adapters. The "primary" adapter responds to the ping, the "secondary" not. Some tests need to be done on the secondary interface, some on the primary.

Until 11, when I used the variable %vm_ip%, it used the primary IP, but now it uses the secondary, hence the tests will fail. Is my assumption correct that the following line in the Job.log shows us the masquarade-IP of the %vm_ip%?

Subnetwork - [172.17.254.0], subnet mask - [255.255.255.0], VM external IP - [172.17.254.1]

How is the IP of %vm_ip% obtained, how was that in v11 and is there a way to do some tricks on it?

Thanks!

[Mildur]

Hi Michael

As always, please provide a case number when you find a technical issue.
Our support team will involve RnD if necessary.
It may be a bug, in that case our support team will find that out from the logs.

Best,
Fabian

[mcz]

# 06096032

[mcz]

Ok Fabian,

got a response from support, it indeed looks to be a bug, %vm_ip% is resolved incorrectly. It just didn't sound as if it was patched/fixed the next time. Got provided with the workaround of manually setting the IP's, which can be done but isn't really a nice solution... Isn't that something that would be needed all over the whole globe?

[HannesK]

Hello,
just curious: what types of machines do you have in SureBackup that have multiple network interfaces?

Isn't that something that would be needed all over the whole globe?

Normally only firewalls should have multiple NICs (otherwise VMs could go around firewalls...). So the number of customers who run into that problem is probably small

It works the following: we get all IP addresses from VMware. In V12 we changed the order how we process the list we get from VMware. That's why it does not work anymore. We need to improve the whole situation in future to support multiple IP addresses / network cards. Thanks for bringing it up, but I cannot provide any timeline when this can be fixed.

Best regards,
Hannes

[mcz]

Hi Hannes,

it's just a "normal" Windows Server. The idea was to separate the dataflow between two different tenants to the same vm. You are right, you could achive the same using one NIC on the vm side and then NAT it on the firewall, but the requirement was to separate that already on the vm side...