With the number of virtual servers most of us are hosting you would run out of VLAN's very quickly. What I do is static route subnets to host nodes and let the host nodes do the L3 work. This takes care of MAC address conflicts, spoofing, and many other problems.
-- Randy www.FastServ.com ---------- Original Message ----------- From: David Hughes <[email protected]> To: "Cisco NSP ((E-mail))'" <[email protected]> Sent: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 08:56:03 +1000 Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Large networks > On 26/08/2009, at 11:58 PM, Gert Doering wrote: > > > Which is why we are VERY happy with "every customer has a different L3 > > subnet" - and yes, this is wasting a few IPv4 addresses, but since our > > customers usually have more than one machine, it's not "75%". Even > > so, > > the time of IPv4 is past, and we should stop worrying about it. > > I'm with Gert on this. Our hosting networks are all configured this > way. And, regarding the OP's comment about VPS, why view a virtual > server any differently? Each customer with either physical or > virtual servers gets a vlan and IP allocation for those servers. > The virtuals quite happily vmotion around the network to their > hearts content. Each ESX cluster node gets to see the vlans for > all the VM's on that cluster. No big deal - it's just a dot1q > trunk after all. > > David > ... > _______________________________________________ > cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ ------- End of Original Message ------- _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
