two interfaces one subnet
cmeidinger at sendmail.com
Mon May 11 16:59:18 CDT 2009
On 11.05.2009, at 23:48, Ben Scott wrote:
> On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 5:38 PM, Chris Meidinger
> <cmeidinger at sendmail.com> wrote:
>> For example, eth0 is 10.0.0.1/24 and eth1 is 10.0.0.2/24, nothing
>> bonding going on. The customers usually have the idea of running one
>> interface for administration and another for production (which is a
>> idea) but they want to do it in the same subnet (not such a good
> I just posted on this, but I didn't really address your original
> question, so: I'm not aware of anything in the RFCs or other standards
> which prohibits this. But then, I haven't gone looking, because...
> It *can* be made to work in practice, for certain scenarios. For
> example, if you're talking a web server, and you bind the "production"
> site to 10.0.0.2 and the "administration" site to 10.0.0.1, and
> configure policy routing (you said Linux, right?) to route
> appropriately, it should work. It works because Apache can bind sites
> to individual interfaces.
Just to restate here, for people who have been responding both
publicly and privately:
I know that *I* can make it work, and I know that *you* can make it
work. But I also know that it's not likely to stay working.
One day, down the road, something will break. Then, my poor support
team will spend days trying to diagnose the problem.
So I want to stop the customer from trying to force a round peg into a
square hole, and just use separate subnets for the different
interfaces. As someone said before, it's not rocket science.
Still though, thanks for all the input; it's really useful.
More information about the NANOG