On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 01:03:15PM -0800, Sabri Berisha wrote:
> TL;DR: a combination of scale and incompetence means you can run out of 10/8
> really quick.

Indeed.  Thank you for providing a demonstration of my point.

I'd question the importance of having an console on target in Singapore
be able to directly address an BMC controller in Phoenix (wait for it),
but I'm sure that's a mission requirement.

But just in case you'd like to reconsider, can I interest you in NAT?
Like nutmeg, a little will add some spice to your recipe -- but too much
will cause nausea and hallucinations.  It's entirely possible to put an
entire 192.168.0.0/16 network behind every single 172.16.0.0/12 address.

So, you've already "not at all hypothetical'd" entire racks completely
full of 1U hosts that are supporting lots of VMs in their beefy memory
on their two processors and also doing SAN into another universe.  Let's
just magic a rack controller to handle the NAT.  We can just cram it
into the extra-dimensional space where the switches live.
 
A standard port mapping configuration to match your "blueprint" ought to
be straight-foward.  But let's elide the details and learn by
demonstration by just using it!

If the Singapore AZ were assigned 172.18.0.0/16.
And the 7th pod were 172.18.7.0/24.
And the 12th rack were 172.18.7.12/32.
We can SSH to the 39th host at: 172.18.7.11:2239
Which NATs to 192.168.0.39:22 on the 192.168.0.0/24 standard net.

If the Phoenix AZ (payoff!) were assigned 172.22.0.0/16.
And the 9th pod were 172.22.9.0/24
And the 33rd rack were 172.22.9.33/32.
We can VNC to the BMC of the 27th host at: 172.22.9.33:5927.
Which NATs to 192.168.1.27:5900 on the 192.168.1.0/24 management net.

Let's see.  We've met all our requirements, left unused more than 50% of
the 172.16/12 space by being very generous to our AZs, left unused 98%
of the 192.168/16 space in each rack, threw every zero-network to the
wolves for our human counting from 1, and still haven't even touched
10/8.  And all less than an hour's chin pulling.

Good for us.

-- 
. ___ ___  .   .  ___
.  \    /  |\  |\ \
.  _\_ /__ |-\ |-\ \__

Reply via email to