VirtualBox - Bridged Adapter Cannot Access Internet

[allanc]

I am trying to use the Bridged Adapter setting in VirtualBox (the current version).
The host is XP PRO sp3 and so is the client.

When I use NAT - I can access the Internet.
I then switch to Bridged Adapter (before starting the virtual machine).
The symptoms are that the LAN connection icon shows that I am connected, I have a valid IP, gateway and DNS servers.
These settings are exactly the same as when I use NAT.
However, Internet Explorer has no success reaching any site.
If I ping by name I get 'Ping request could not find www.google.com. Please check the name and try again'.
If I ping by IP I get 'Request timed out'.
I have disabled the firewalls on both the Host and Client.

The Bridged Adapter setting did work properly at one time and I think (but not sure) that it no longer worked when I uninstalled the Guest Additions.
I have uninstalled and reinstalled VirtualBox to try to resolve this issue and no longer want to use Guest Additions.

 

[SilverLeaf]

These settings are exactly the same as when I use NAT.

Sounds like something may be misconfigured. What are the IP's of your guest and host? If the bridge is set up correctly, they should be part of the same network. If not, the two IP's will be from different networks, as is the case with NAT. Frequently this is caused by selecting the wrong NIC on the host for the guest to bridge to (if you have multiple interfaces on the host).

 

[allanc]

Sounds like something may be misconfigured. What are the IP's of your guest and host? If the bridge is set up correctly, they should be part of the same network. If not, the two IP's will be from different networks, as is the case with NAT. Frequently this is caused by selecting the wrong NIC on the host for the guest to bridge to (if you have multiple interfaces on the host).

There is one physical NIC on the host.
The host is on a VLAN (192.168.15.110).
The Guest in either NAT or Bridged Adapter mode is 10.0.2.15 with a Gateway of 10.0.2.2

 

[SilverLeaf]

Do you have a DHCP server/router on the host's network (192.168.15.*)?

 

[allanc]

Do you have a DHCP server/router on the host's network (192.168.15.*)?

It is a complicated setup that Cisco setup for me on a managed switch.
My mind is mush right now.
Is there a simple way for me to know?
Would the NAT setting work without one?

 

[SilverLeaf]

It is a complicated setup that Cisco setup for me on a managed switch.
My mind is mush right now.
Is there a simple way for me to know?
Would the NAT setting work without one?

Yes, NAT would still work. The VB software takes care of this, acting almost like a NAT router.

With a Bridged setup, the guest would broadcast for a DHCP lease request on the same network as the host. So, effectively, your guest gets an IP from the same source that your host gets one. That is, unless the host has a static IP, and there is no DHCP server on the network.

 

[allanc]

Yes, NAT would still work. The VB software takes care of this, acting almost like a NAT router.

With a Bridged setup, the guest would broadcast for a DHCP lease request on the same network as the host. So, effectively, your guest gets an IP from the same source that your host gets one. That is, unless the host has a static IP, and there is no DHCP server on the network.

The Host does have a static internal IP.
Do you have any suggestions as to how I can configure the Bridged Adapter to work (please)?

 

[ShinyTech]

Have you tried setting the IP, subnet, Gateway, and DNS to match the host (well, except make sure the IP is different, and that no other machines are using that IP)

so if the host is
IP 192.168.1.50
Subnet 255.255.255.0
Gateway 192.168.1.1 (router)
DNS 192.168.1.10 (server if you have one, if not match the gateway)
DNS 8.8.8.8 (secondary)

VBox should be
IP 192.168.1.55
Subnet 255.255.255.0
Gateway 192.168.1.1 (router)
DNS 192.168.1.10 (server if you have one, if not match the gateway)
DNS 8.8.8.8 (secondary)

Ofcourse these numbers will differ depending on your specific setup

 

[SilverLeaf]

Have you tried setting the IP, subnet, Gateway, and DNS to match the host (well, except make sure the IP is different, and that no other machines are using that IP)

so if the host is
IP 192.168.1.50
Subnet 255.255.255.0
Gateway 192.168.1.1 (router)
DNS 192.168.1.10 (server if you have one, if not match the gateway)
DNS 8.8.8.8 (secondary)

VBox should be
IP 192.168.1.55
Subnet 255.255.255.0
Gateway 192.168.1.1 (router)
DNS 192.168.1.10 (server if you have one, if not match the gateway)
DNS 8.8.8.8 (secondary)

Ofcourse these numbers will differ depending on your specific setup

Yes. Change the TCP\IP settings in the guest OS to an available static IP that is part of the host's network, with the same gateway, etc..

 

[allanc]

Have you tried setting the IP, subnet, Gateway, and DNS to match the host (well, except make sure the IP is different, and that no other machines are using that IP)

so if the host is
IP 192.168.1.50
Subnet 255.255.255.0
Gateway 192.168.1.1 (router)
DNS 192.168.1.10 (server if you have one, if not match the gateway)
DNS 8.8.8.8 (secondary)

VBox should be
IP 192.168.1.55
Subnet 255.255.255.0
Gateway 192.168.1.1 (router)
DNS 192.168.1.10 (server if you have one, if not match the gateway)
DNS 8.8.8.8 (secondary)

Ofcourse these numbers will differ depending on your specific setup

That worked.
Thank you.

However, I would like to use the client to test virus removal.
Is putting these two computers on the same subnet going to expose the host?

 

[SilverLeaf]

That worked.
Thank you.

However, I would like to use the client to test virus removal.
Is putting these two computers on the same subnet going to expose the host?

Quite possibly. I would feel more comfortable with a NAT setup in this case, just in case you get some nasty worm or something.

 

[ShinyTech]

My opinion is that it should be fine. It is possible to transmit the virus between the VMs but highly unlikely.

 

[allanc]

Quite possibly. I would feel more comfortable with a NAT setup in this case, just in case you get some nasty worm or something.

Interesting, there seems to be two 'camps' in the NAT versus Bridged Adapter settings in terms of protecting the Host from a Virus.
VirtualBox.Org seems to be down for a couple of days now so I can't quote their take on it.
I will switch back to NAT.
Thanks to all.