I would like to install or add a mysql instance in my docker container and would like to access that mysql instance in my application in another docker container. So basically I'm creating one docker container that contains my application and I want to access a mysql inside that container
You can connect using networks. Take a look at this file which builds a mysql container and connects it to a network. And then connects another container to the same network. The required container accesses the mysql container using its ip address and port. I had to use IP address due to following reasons.
The Docker embedded DNS server enables name resolution for containers connected to a given network. This means that any connected container can ping another container on the same network by its container name. From within container2, you can ping container3 by name.
This functionality is not available for the default bridge network.
Both container1 and container2 are connected to the bridge network,
but you cannot ping container1 from container2 using the container
name.
Source:Working with networks
While I was trying to do this process, I wrote about it in my blog. Might help you.
Related
Here is my situation：
First，I run a MySQL container(IP:172.17.0.2) on centOS;
Then I run a Nacos contanier with specified datasource(MySQL above) on the same host, but i didn't use the ip of the MySQL container, instead I used the ip of the bridge Gateway(172.17.0.1)(two containers both link to the default bridge).
What surprised me was that Nacos works well, it can query config data from MySQL container normally.
How did this happen? I have read some documention but didn't get the answer.It really confused me.
On modern Docker installations, try to avoid using the default bridge network. docker network create a network (it doesn't need any special options, but it does need to be created) and then launch your containers on --net that network. If you're using Compose, it creates a ("user bridge") network named default for you.
On your CentOS host, if you run ifconfig, you should see a docker0 interface with the 172.17.0.1 address. When you launch a container with the docker run -p option, that container is accessible via the first port number on all host interfaces, including the docker0 interface.
Meanwhile, inside a container (on the default bridge network), it sees that same IP address as the normal IPv4 gateway address (try docker run --rm busybox route -n). So, when you connect to 172.17.0.1:3306, you're connecting out to the host, and then connecting to the published port of the database container.
This isn't a totally standard way to connect between containers, though it will work. You should prefer using Docker named networks, which will let you connect to another container using the container's name without manually doing any IP-address lookups. If you really can't move off of the default bridge network, then the standard approach is to --link to the other container, but this entire path is considered outdated.
My program is consisting of a network of ROS1 and ROS2 nodes, which are software that work with a publish/subscribe way of communication.
Assume there is 4 nodes running inside a custom network: onboard_network.
Those 4 nodes (ROS1) can only communicate together, therefore we have a bridge node (ROS1 & ROS2) that needs to be sitting on the edge on both onboard_network and host network. The reason why we need the host network is because the host is inside a VPN (Zerotier). Inside the VPN we have also our server (ROS2).
We also need the bride node to work with host network because ROS2 work with some multicast stuff that works only on host mode.
So basically, I want a docker compose file running 4 containers inside an onboard_network & a container running inside the host network. The last container needs to be seen from the containers in the onboard_network and being able to see them too. How could I do it ? Is it even possible ?
If you're running a container on the host network, its network setup is identical to a non-container process running on the host.
A container can't be set to use both host networking and Docker networking.
That means, for your network_mode: host container, it can call other containers using localhost as a hostname and their published ports: (because its network is the host's network). For your bridge-network containers, they can call the host-network container using the special hostname host.docker.internal on MacOS or Windows hosts, or on Linux they need to find some reachable IP address (this is discussed further in From inside of a Docker container, how do I connect to the localhost of the machine?.
I deployed a demo web API project on port 8086.I am able to run it on my local browser using localhost:8086/api/controllername and also using local machine IP address for example: 192.0.0.0:8086/api/controllername. I tried accessing the URL from another machine on same LAN and I am able to access it.
But now I want to access it from machines on other networks (publicly).
How can I assign a static IP so that I can use the API from any machine irrespective of network? I created a network using below commands
docker network create --driver bridge --subnet 172.18.0.0/16 -- gateway=172.18.0.1 IPStatic
and
docker network connect --ip 172.18.0.2 IPStatic Containerid.
But unable to access the api using 172.18.0.2:8086/api. Am I missing something? I am using asp.net core web api and I am fairly new to Docker.
You always use the host IP address for this, the same way as if you were running the service outside of Docker. The container-private IP addresses are unreachable from other hosts (and on some platforms aren't even reachable from outside Docker on the same host); it's usually wrong to manually set them or to try to look them up.
If it's specifically important that this service have its own IP address, you need to ask your network administrator to assign an additional address to the host. The docker run -p option can bind a service to only specific network interfaces or addresses. On a Linux host I might run
# Assign the alias address
ifconfig eth0:0 192.0.0.2
# Run the service bound to only this interface
docker run -p 192.0.0.2:80:8080 ...
You might need to reconfigure other services to not listen on this new interface. For Docker services you'd use the same docker run -p option to bind to only the host's primary interface and to localhost (127.0.0.1); configuration for non-Docker services is specific to the service.
i want to expose the container ip to the external network where the host is running so that i can directly ping the docker container ip from an external machine.
If i ping the docker container ip from the external machine where the machine hosting the docker and the machine from which i am pinging are in the same network i need to get the response from these machines
Pinging the container's IP (i.e. the IP it shows when you look at docker inspect [CONTAINER]) from another machine does not work. However, the container is reachable via the public IP of its host.
In addition to Borja's answer, you can expose the ports of Docker containers by adding -p [HOST_PORT]:[CONTAINER_PORT] to your docker run command.
E.g. if you want to reach a web server in a Docker container from another machine, you can start it with docker run -d -p 80:80 httpd:alpine. The container's port 80 is then reachable via the host's port 80. Other machines on the same network will then also be able to reach the webserver in this container (depending on Firewall settings etc. of course...)
Since you tagged this as kubernetes:
You cannot directly send packets to individual Docker containers. You need to send them to somewhere else that’s able to route them. In the case of plain Docker, you need to use the docker run -p option to publish a port to the host, and then containers will be reachable via the published port via the host’s IP address or DNS name. In a Kubernetes context, you need to set up a Service that’s able to route traffic to the Pod (or Pods) that are running your container, and you ultimately reach containers via that Service.
The container-internal IP addresses are essentially useless in many contexts. (They cannot be reached from off-host at all; in some environments you can’t even reach them from outside of Docker on the same host.) There are other mechanisms you can use to reach containers (docker run -p from outside Docker, inter-container DNS from within Docker) and you never need to look up these IP addresses at all.
Your question places a heavy emphasis on ping(1). This is a very-low-level debugging tool that uses a network protocol called ICMP. If sending packets using ICMP is actually core to your workflow, you will have difficulty running it in Docker or Kubernetes. I suspect you aren’t actually. Don’t worry so much about being able to directly ping containers; use higher-level tools like curl(1) if you need to verify that a request is reaching its container.
It's pretty easy actually, assuming you have control over the routing tables of your external devices (either directly, or via your LAN's gateway/router). Assuming your containers are using a bridge network of 172.17.0.0/16, you add a static entry for the 172.17.0.0/16 network, with your Docker physical LAN IP as the gateway. You might need to also allow this forwarding in your Docker OS firewall configuration.
After that, you should be able to connect to your docker container using its bridge address (172.17.0.2 for example). Note however that it will likely not respond to pings, due to the container's firewall.
If you're content to access your container using only the bridge IP (and never again use your Docker host IP with the mapped-port), you can remove port mapping from the container entirely.
You need to create a new bridge docker network and attach the container to this network. You should be able to connect by this way.
docker network create -d bridge my-new-bridge-network
or
docker network create --driver=bridge --subnet=192.168.0.0/16 my-new-bridge-network
connect:
docker network connect my-new-bridge-network container1
or
docker network connect --ip 192.168.0.10/16 my-new-bridge-network container-name
If the problem persist, just reload docker daemon, restart the service. Is a known issue.
I have not done any practical with the docker and container, But as per my knowledge.
As per the documents available online I did not get the details about the running two or more containers at the same time.
Docker allows container to map port address of container to the host machine.
Now, the question is can we run multiple container at the same time on docker? if yes then if two containers are mapped to same port number then how does the port is handled in this case?
Also out of curiosity, can two containers on docker communicate with each other?
Yes you can run multiple containers on a single host; docker is designed for exactly that.
You cannot map two containers of different images to the same port number; you get an error response if you try. However, if your containers run the same image (e.g.2 instances of a webapp) you could run them as a service, and have them exposed on the same port. Docker will load-balance the requests. You can read more about services here or follow the Get Started (Part 3, services) here
Yes, the containers on a single host can communicate with each other, by container name. For example if you have one container running MongoDB called mongo, and another one running Node.js called webserver, the webserver container can connect to the database by using the name mongo e.g. db.Connect("mongodb://mongo:27017/testdb").
We can run more one than one Docker at a time in a host but yes we will hit the limitation of binding the same port to the docker; so to resolve this we need to bind different port in the host to docker that is if you are running mongo-db then its default port is 27017 so we can run two mongo-db as -p 27017:27017 for Docker D1 and -p 27018:27017 for Docker D2 and 5000:27017 for docker D3; Like this you can bind different host port to map to 27017 for mongo-db port; Now your question is how to manage this ports from host then I would recommend you to use nginx for port managing in the host machine.
Coming to your next question all dockers are connected to default docker0 bridge network so we can connect to any of the dockers connected to default bridge 'docker0' network; If I am right it will come with ipaddress of 172.x.x.x network. Get inside to the docker and run 'ip addr' to see the ip-address assigned to the dockers and you can test connection by running ping command.
Yes two containers can run same time, they can also communicate with each other also, you can define your own network and they can communicate with each other. if two containers have their private ports, they are their internal ports, one container port does not collide with another container port. if you want to expose the port to host, then you have to publish the port(s).