RRH@VM.NRC.CA (04/12/91)
J. Bashinski mentions a technique for having multiple addresses on one
port by using secondary options. i.e
interface ethernet 0
ip address 131.108.1.1 255.255.255.0
ip address 131.108.2.1 255.255.255.0 secondary
ip address 131.108.3.1 255.255.255.0 secondary
We have been using the following technique (cause at time there was no
secondary option).
ip route 131.108.2.1 ethernet 0
ip route 131.108.3.1 ethernet 0
It does the job but which technique is better ?
Ratilal Hariarv@deins.Informatik.Uni-Dortmund.DE (Ruediger Volk) (04/14/91)
In article <1991Apr12.121846.20016@nrcnet0.nrc.ca>, RRH@VM.NRC.CA writes: |> J. Bashinski mentions a technique for having multiple addresses on one |> port by using secondary options. i.e |> |> interface ethernet 0 |> ip address 131.108.1.1 255.255.255.0 |> ip address 131.108.2.1 255.255.255.0 secondary |> ip address 131.108.3.1 255.255.255.0 secondary |> |> We have been using the following technique (cause at time there was no |> secondary option). |> |> ip route 131.108.2.1 ethernet 0 |> ip route 131.108.3.1 ethernet 0 |> |> It does the job but which technique is better ? The interface routes (the last alternative) are a quite old feature, so I guess the secondary addresses are "better" :-) In fact I have changed some interface routes to secondary addresses in my configuration (though not on Ethernet but on X.25 interfaces); being able to define an address for the router itself on the additional network is useful - though it's still not perfect: the router does not use the secondary address when sending packets out - which inhibits the use of routing protocols on networks joined over secondary address assignments (probably not so much a problem with LAN interfaces - but we are missing this for our X.25 configuration; well, probably the best way to tackle this specific problem could be using a different address binding architecture for the RFC877 encapsulation). Ruediger Volk rv@Informatik.Uni-Dortmund.DE