SD-WAN

 View Only
last person joined: 14 days ago 

Ask questions and share experiences with SD-WAN and Session Smart Router (formerly 128T).

  • 1.  Weighing options for multiple WAN IP's on a single, physical interface where 802.1q may not be an option.

     
    Posted 03-02-2018 00:00

    Question for the team... Given a scenario where a customer has a pool of WAN side IP?s but only a single device-interface, what are the configuration options available? In this case 128T is directly connected to the carrier's modem so there is no switch available for VLAN tagging.

     

    I think there are four possible scenarios for configuring interface-addresses:

     

    1 - single device interface -> single network interface -> single interface address

    2 - single device interface -> multiple network interfaces/VLANs -> each with their own interface-address

    3 - single device interface -> multiple network interfaces/no VLANs -> each with their own interface-address

    4 - single device interface -> single network interface -> multiple interface-addresses

     

    All public IP?s in this scenario share the same default gateway.

     

    #1 and #2 are common deployment models, so no questions there. 

     

    Are #?s 3 and 4 supported, and if so, will we ARP out for each address specified?  It looks like they?re both valid from a configuration perspective (no validation errors at least).   

     

    #3 seems to be the preferred scenario, as #4 would place each address into a neighborhood (if one already exists).  

     

    Are any of these scenarios not supported today?  Thoughts on pros/cons?



  • 2.  RE: Weighing options for multiple WAN IP's on a single, physical interface where 802.1q may not be an option.

    Posted 03-02-2018 00:00

    Hello,

    Would it be possible to set up a static nat pool that does a 1:1 mapping of private ip's to public?



  • 3.  RE: Weighing options for multiple WAN IP's on a single, physical interface where 802.1q may not be an option.

     
    Posted 03-02-2018 00:00

    I have tried option 3 previously, and used multiple interfaces (with same gateway) as waypoints in SVR paths. Routing to those waypoints worked fine. However, when I created a service agent type service route with these interfaces as next hop egress interfaces, things didn't work as expected. Traffic was always routed out one interface, even when I specified the other as egress interface. I believe this all comes back to the fact that we don't currently support directly connected networks with overlapping IP address spaces. And option 3 is effectively that. We do support OLIP for networks 1 hop away from the 128T router. I also tried option 4 and can say it is definitely not supported today.