ISP handed me a block of IP's confused as how to configure as worded
-
@cyberconsultants said in ISP handed me a block of IP's confused as how to configure as worded:
bridging the interfaces
<rolleyes> yeah have fun with that.. And that clearly does not meet his request of
have two separate networks
Do you need "separate" defined for you?
-
@johnpoz do the words 'additional routing overhead' mean anything to you? when's the last time a curmudgeon like you had an earnest discussion about the OSI model, internal dialogue or otherwise?
-
@cyberconsultants routing overhead for 2 segments? So which do you think is more optimal routing the traffic or bridging it? Which he then still has to route the /29 anyway.
Here is my opinion, it sure and the hell is not bridging it.. He would be better off buying a 20$ gig switch and using that vs software bridging on his "router"..
But sure you go ahead and walk him through the bridge setup.. He couldn't even figure out what the isp was telling him, have fun walking him through the bridging setup..
You know what kluge is, trying to leverage discrete interfaces as switch ports via software bridge..
-
@johnpoz said in ISP handed me a block of IP's confused as how to configure as worded:
He would be better off buying a 20$ gig switch and using that vs software bridging on his "router"..
on that we can maybe agree. would need to see actual throughput comparison though. i doubt it's material enough (if at all) to justify another piece of hardware. perfectly capable XG-1537 OP is working with here.
You know what kluge is, trying to leverage discrete interfaces as switch ports via software bridge..
subnetting for the sake of subnetting certainly strikes as inelegant. bridging would allow all "LAN" interfaces to exist on the single 71.100.8.232/29 subnet.
and as to your shot earlier about whether i need "separate" defined for me—you gotta think bigger picture, John. what do you think is gonna be on the inside of each UDM?
kluge
*kludge. i didn't make this word up.
