nanog mailing list archives
Re: Subnet Size for BGP peers.
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike () swm pp se>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 06:28:26 +0200 (CEST)
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009, Benjamin Billon wrote:
Who knows any other good way to lose IP addresses?
I know how to not lose them: int lo30 ip address 192.168.0.1 255.255.255.0 int gi2.10 encap dot1q 10 desc cust 1 ip address unnumbered lo30 int gi2.11 encap dot1q 11 desc cust 2 ip address unnumbered lo30 ip route 192.168.0.2 255.255.255.255 gi2.10 ip route 192.168.0.3 255.255.255.255 gi2.11etc. Now you can have one customer per vlan but still have them share the same IP subnet. This works with vlan interfaces as well.
I don't remember if you have to do local-proxy-arp or not, but if you're running bgp you could always do next-hop-self to be sure it hops via the gateway.
-- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike () swm pp se
Current thread:
- Subnet Size for BGP peers. Jim Wininger (Jul 29)
- Re: Subnet Size for BGP peers. Nathan Ward (Jul 29)
- RE: Subnet Size for BGP peers. Paul Stewart (Jul 29)
- Re: Subnet Size for BGP peers. Benjamin Billon (Jul 29)
- Re: Subnet Size for BGP peers. Mikael Abrahamsson (Jul 29)
- Re: Subnet Size for BGP peers. Mikael Abrahamsson (Jul 30)
- Re: Subnet Size for BGP peers. Mikael Abrahamsson (Jul 29)
- Re: Subnet Size for BGP peers. Barton F Bruce (Jul 29)
- Re: Subnet Size for BGP peers. Doug McIntyre (Jul 30)
- Re: Subnet Size for BGP peers. Roy (Jul 30)
- Re: Subnet Size for BGP peers. Doug McIntyre (Jul 30)
- Re: Subnet Size for BGP peers. Adrian Minta (Jul 30)