Whether you use /24, /29, or /30 on your interfaces, the routing should work the same way, though, right? You shouldn’t have a stranded backhaul in a meshed network running OSPF/internal BGP. If the link is actually hardware down or even has hardware up but non-functional, the routing table should still reflect the routes that are up (i.e. the ones where OSPF/BGP continues to communicate).
From: Af [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of That One Guy /sarcasm Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2015 12:48 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Issues with doing /29 inside of routerboard I think youre doing what we are doing I just defined a 172.31.0.0/24<http://172.31.0.0/24> for backhauls to be splitting up, maintaining a third octet was a mess. these router IPs are socondary IPs on the interface to the primary router/ospf communication Going site one to site two uses 2 /30 Router 1 -172.31.0.1/30<http://172.31.0.1/30> backhaul 1 - 172.31.0.2/30<http://172.31.0.2/30> with gateway 172.31.0.1 backhaul 2 - 172.31.0.5/30<http://172.31.0.5/30> with a gateway of 172.31.0.6 router 2 - 172.31.0.6/30<http://172.31.0.6/30> This way the routes propogate through ospf, and you never get a stranded backhaul with a down link because you were gatewaying to the other side (SAF is forcing me to rethink this) Its easy to manage with an excel spreadsheet Trying to tie the side id to the subnet was impossible On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 12:42 PM, TJ Trout <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Chinese On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 10:31 AM, Tim Reichhart <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Mike basically rob haas was helping me out on this he sent me an little cheat sheet like this: a /29 – 255.255.255.248 is what I use on the backhauls Each Site is assign a site number – say 33 Every site is assigned a /24 for management with my IP scheme of 10.100.site.X The first backhauls would fall into 10.100.33.0/29<http://10.100.33.0/29> so: 10.100.33.1 – Local radio 10.100.33.2 – Local Router 10.100.33.3 – Remote Radio 10.100.33.4 – Remote Router The next backhaul would be out of 10.100.33.8/29<http://10.100.33.8/29> so: 10.100.33.9 – Local Radio 10.100.33.10 – Local Router 10.100.33.11 – Remote Radio 10.100.33.12 – Remote Router basically I want break down the ip's down for backhauls. Tim ________________________________ -----Original Message----- From: "Mike Hammett" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Date: 08/26/15 01:23 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Issues with doing /29 inside of routerboard Can you tell us the bigger picture of what's going on so we can help better? ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com ________________________________ From: "Tim Reichhart" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2015 12:09:01 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Issues with doing /29 inside of routerboard I was told to take that /24 and break it down to /29. But I didn't see an way to make work without readdressing whole subnet. Tim -----Original Message----- Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Issues with doing /29 inside of routerboard From: "Mike Hammett" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Date: 2015/08/26 18:59:54 I did not, no. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com From: "Josh Luthman" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2015 11:58:27 AM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Issues with doing /29 inside of routerboard Did you mean a /29 on eth1? Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340<tel:937-552-2340> Direct: 937-552-2343<tel:937-552-2343> 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373On Aug 26, 2015 12:53 PM, "Mike Hammett" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: You can't have overlapping subnets. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com From: "Tim Reichhart" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2015 11:52:43 AM Subject: [AFMUG] Issues with doing /29 inside of routerboard Hi guys I am having bit of an issue getting /29 to work in routerboard. What I am looking to do is put 172.16.2.x/29 on ether2 but I already have 172.16.2.1/24on<http://172.16.2.1/24on> ether1. So I don't know what I am missing here. -- If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team. Doug Hass Associate 312.786.6502 Franczek Radelet P.C. 300 South Wacker Drive Suite 3400 Chicago, IL 60606 312.986.0300 - Main 312.986.9192 - Fax www.franczek.com Circular 230 Disclosure: Under requirements imposed by the Internal Revenue Service, we inform you that, unless specifically stated otherwise, any federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purposes of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or tax-related matter herein. ________________________________________ For more information about Franczek Radelet P.C., please visit franczek.com. The information contained in this e-mail message or any attachment may be confidential and/or privileged, and is intended only for the use of the named recipient. If you are not the named recipient of this message, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message or any attachment thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender and delete all copies. ________________________________________ Franczek Radelet is committed to sustainability - please consider the environment before printing this email
