[c-nsp] Large networks

[Randy McAnally]

No, we actually carve out one or more subnet for each VPS host and assign
individual IPs to each VPS.  Few IPs are wasted.

The only drawback is that a VPS must change IP to be shifted to an alternate node.

--
Randy

---------- Original Message -----------
From: "Shaun R." <mailinglists at unix-scripts.com>
To: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
Sent: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 09:32:30 -0700
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Large networks

> > 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.
> 
> So you still carve out a subnet for each vps? For me that didnt make 
> sense to do because now each customer gets 4 ips (/30) and it seames 
> like a waist of space.   a vps with 40 nodes with consume 2/3's of a 
> /24.  With IPv6 i guess it wouldnt matter :)  I was just trying to 
> do my best to save ips. ebtables acts as a ACL on the edge interface.
> 
> ~Shaun
> 
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
------- End of Original Message -------