No, that really would not be a good idea. Why do you need 1 dhcp server? Trying to save on IPs? You can route /32 publics over your 10/x space but it would not be DHCP compatible. If you bridge you will have to have the same subnet for bridge1 and ether4, might as well just add it to the bridge in that case.
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 9:30 AM, Ty Featherling <[email protected]> wrote: > I would like to set up a router as follows: > > ether1 - Uplink - 10.35.0.2/29 (default route is to 10.35.0.1) > > ether2 & ether3 both assigned to bridge1 > bridge1 - UBNT 365 APs - 10.35.3.1/24 > > ether4 - Canopy 900 AP - 10.35.9.1/24 > > No problems there. I have a specific network at this site for each band ( > 10.35.3.x for 3.65, 10.35.9.x for 900) > > But, I need ONE dhcp server on this router to hand out publics to these > customers. Can I add bridge2, add a dhcp server on that interface, then add > ether2-4 to that bridge as well? Or can I even have 2 bridges on the same > interface? > > I know I can make ether3 a slave of ether2 but I like the per port stats. I > can give them up if I have to though. > > Is there another way? > > -Ty > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > <http://www.butchevans.com/pipermail/mikrotik/attachments/20120823/c865e2ad/attachment.html> > _______________________________________________ > Mikrotik mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.butchevans.com/mailman/listinfo/mikrotik > > Visit http://blog.butchevans.com/ for tutorials related to Mikrotik RouterOS _______________________________________________ Mikrotik mailing list [email protected] http://www.butchevans.com/mailman/listinfo/mikrotik Visit http://blog.butchevans.com/ for tutorials related to Mikrotik RouterOS
