When we speedtest a link, we generally go router<->router via their
private router IDs.
Leave the privates of the backhauls out of the equation (let them be
transparent).
bp
On 10/7/2014 8:38 AM, That One Guy via Af wrote:
good deal, so im not going to monkey things up?
if it is ospf, even with /30 on each end, the radios should be able to
communicate, only via their ethernet ports through the routers if you
were going to run speedtest?
On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 10:34 AM, Bill Prince via Af <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
If the backhaul is in a chain, we generally put their management
IPs in a /30 from the local router. So there is a separate /30 at
each end of the link.
If the backhaul is in a cul-de-sac, we might put them in a /29
from the near-end (the end closest to the backbone). However, we
mostly do the /30, as it is an easy way to prevent the management
IPs becoming part of a public route.
bp
On 10/6/2014 7:44 PM, That One Guy via Af wrote:
This came up before, but I cant find the thread. is the attached
configuration the correct way to set up access to the radios?
I had initially thought having the radios in the same subnet is
how it is supposed to be, primarily because thats how it always
was, but with having the radios in a /30 on each side of the link
you would be able to access the local side radio if the link were
to drop.
Is this the correct way of looking at this or is there a better
method of maintaining access in a dynamic environment??
--
All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember
that the parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you.
Therefore, if you can't get them together again, there must be a
reason. By all means, do not use a hammer. -- IBM maintenance
manual, 1925
--
All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember that
the parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if
you can't get them together again, there must be a reason. By all
means, do not use a hammer. -- IBM maintenance manual, 1925
