Re: Using /32 resp. /128 netmask for carp ips

2018-11-24 Thread Stuart Henderson
On 2018-11-24, Henry Bonath wrote: > To add to this, just as when using other first-hop redundancy protocols > like VRRP or HSRP on a Router or Layer-3 switch, > we only want the single IP address to float between the redundant hosts, > and not the entire subnet. > So we define the most specific

Re: Using /32 resp. /128 netmask for carp ips

2018-11-23 Thread Henry Bonath
To add to this, just as when using other first-hop redundancy protocols like VRRP or HSRP on a Router or Layer-3 switch, we only want the single IP address to float between the redundant hosts, and not the entire subnet. So we define the most specific subnet mask for IPv4, which is 255.255.255.255

Re: Using /32 resp. /128 netmask for carp ips

2018-11-23 Thread Janne Johansson
Den fre 23 nov. 2018 kl 18:50 skrev Joerg Streckfuss : > > Dear list, > > i want to know why it is good practice to use /32 netmask for ipv4 > respectively /128 netmask for ipv6 addresses on carp interfaces, while using > the > "real" netmask for example /24 for a dedicated address on an

Using /32 resp. /128 netmask for carp ips

2018-11-23 Thread Joerg Streckfuss
Dear list, i want to know why it is good practice to use /32 netmask for ipv4 respectively /128 netmask for ipv6 addresses on carp interfaces, while using the "real" netmask for example /24 for a dedicated address on an interface. Any advice ? Thanks, Joerg