On a loopback interface you could use a /32
...can't think of another specific advantage off the top of my head.
Never occurred to me that I might want to, to be honest. I’m not sure
what the advantages to doing it on a loopback interface would be, for
this application.
*From:*Af [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Paul Stewart
*Sent:* Wednesday, May 13, 2015 2:38 PM
*To:* [email protected]
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik stable OS version
For NAT, why wouldn’t you use a loopback interface intead of binding
them to a physical interface?
*From:*Af [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Shayne Lebrun
*Sent:* Wednesday, May 13, 2015 12:52 PM
*To:* [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik stable OS version
Bah. I have a MT with 192 public addresses on one interface, doing
either 1:1 nat or masquerade to each of them. The only real caveat is
‘make damn sure you have a firewall that deals with ssh/telnet/ftp
login attempts’ or the CPU gets bogged down a bit, as each public IP
will attract it’s own attacks.
This instance started on 2.9.44 or so, on x86 I think, and has gone
through various firmware and hardware upgrades since.
*From:*Af [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *That One Guy
/sarcasm
*Sent:* Wednesday, May 13, 2015 12:32 PM
*To:* [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik stable OS version
for an interim move (I have to prove mikrotik to the boss) there could
be as many as 90 at one point. Imagestream occasionally would get
fussy if I had multiple router interfaces on the same physical network
segment, does mikrotik get fussy about this?
On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 11:20 AM, Mike Hammett <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Likely no limit. How many are you trying to put on?
-----
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
<https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL><https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb><https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions><https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
Midwest Internet Exchange
http://www.midwest-ix.com
<https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix><https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange><https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From: *"That One Guy /sarcasm" <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
*To: *[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
*Sent: *Wednesday, May 13, 2015 11:18:08 AM
*Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik stable OS version
Do these things have a limit to the number of secondary IPs you can
put on an interface? I cant find it documented
On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 9:56 AM, Stefan Englhardt <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
No problems with newer 6.x Version. We’ve 6.15 and 6.25 running on them.
Seems 6.x tree matures. But it is MT. You never know ;-)).
*Von:*Af [mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>]
*Im Auftrag von *That One Guy /sarcasm
*Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 13. Mai 2015 16:51
*An:* [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
*Betreff:* [AFMUG] Mikrotik stable OS version
just got in an rb1100ahx2 What is the current most stable software
version recomended on these?
--
If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your
team as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.
--
If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your
team as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.
--
If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your
team as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.
