|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
From: Chris Meidinger <cmeidinger@sendmail.com> To: Dan White <dwhite@olp.net> In-Reply-To: <4A089933.1060705@olp.net> Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 23:38:30 +0200 Cc: nanog@nanog.org Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org On 11.05.2009, at 23:31, Dan White wrote: > Chris Meidinger wrote: >> Hi, >> >> This is a pretty moronic question, but I've been searching RFC's on- >> and-off for a couple of weeks and can't find an answer. So I'm >> hoping someone here will know it offhand. >> I've been looking through RFC's trying to find a clear statement >> that having two interfaces in the same subnet does not work, but >> can't find it that statement anywhere. >> The OS in this case is Linux. I know it can be done with clever >> routing and prioritization and such, but this has to do with >> vanilla config, just setting up two interfaces in one network. >> I would be grateful for a pointer to such an RFC statement, >> assuming it exists. > > If your goal is to achieve redundancy or to increase bandwidth, you > can bond the interfaces together - assuming that you have a switch / > switch stack that supports 802.3ad. > > Then you could assign multiple IPs to the bonded interface without > any layer 3 messyness. I should have been clearer. The case in point is having two physical interfaces, each with a unique IP, in the same subnet. For example, eth0 is 10.0.0.1/24 and eth1 is 10.0.0.2/24, nothing like bonding going on. The customers usually have the idea of running one interface for administration and another for production (which is a _good_ idea) but they want to do it in the same subnet (not such a good idea...) Chris
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |