[racktables-users] Re: IP tracking for Service Providors
- From: "Don Greer" <Don.Greer@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <racktables-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2010 15:19:43 -0500
Might I suggest that, since the IP network already has a one-way relation to
the VLAN, perhaps that could be made a two-way relation, so the key would be
"VLAN:NETWORK" and, base on the two-way relation to the VLAN Campus, the
ultimate relation is "CAMPUS:VLAN:IPADDRESS". This would resolve the issue for
both the problems below, as well as myself where I want to allow customers to
us RT as a tool to manage and document their
I don't know how hard that would be, but it would change the schema of the
database, so likely a major rev type change.
Don
-----Original Message-----
From: racktables-users-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:racktables-users-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike Graham
Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2010 5:39 PM
To: racktables-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Denis Ovsienko
Subject: [racktables-users] Re: IP tracking for Service Providors
Don,
That's exactly what we need but in a slightly different scenario. We have
multiple of the same blocks in the same data-center separated by VRF's
('VRF-Lite' if you're in a Cisco world, 'Virtual-Routers' if you're in a
Juniper world). If you're unfamiliar, a VRF, or Virtual Router, allows you to
run multiple routing tables on the same routers thus allowing different
customers to use the same underlying IP space. So using your example we would
need "customer1:192.168.0.0/24" and "customer2:192.168.0.0/24".
Obviously this isn't our choice as it makes managing routing and IP space more
complicated but when we have hundreds of customers connecting via MPLS or VPN
into our data-centers a conflict was bound to happen eventually.
Mike Graham
----- Original Message -----
From: "Don McMorris" <dmcmorris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: racktables-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: "Denis Ovsienko" <infrastation@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, July 6, 2010 5:41:11 PM
Subject: [racktables-users] Re: IP tracking for Service Providors
On 07/06/2010 05:16 PM, Denis Ovsienko wrote:
> 06.07.2010, 05:11, "Mike Graham"<mailing-lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>> I recently found RackTables and so far am very happy with the software.
>> Unfortunately the organization I work for is a managed service provider so
>> we have multiple IP subnets that overlap (some customers have the same IP
>> ranges). Is there any way within RackTables to accommodate this? I realize
>> we could do multiple instances of RackTables but that's not an option for us.
>>
>
> We need an idea explaining how "same" IP networks can co-exist and what
> happens, when you allocate an IP address to a server, for which there are
> multiple networks. Once there is someone with this understanding, may be,
> there will be someone with an implementation.
I hope I'm not muddying the waters here. We've run in to, if I
understand correctly, a similar situation. 2 or more sites might use
the same RFC1918 IP address ranges (EX: 10.1.0.0/24) for internal
addressing...
For example, I might have cages at both site 'atlcolo' and 'nyccolo'. I
have both sites in racktables. Both sites use 192.168.0.0/24 IP
addresses (for sake of completeness, lets call this 'a result of less
than perfect planning'). However, as I understand RackTables, we can
only have one 192.168.0.0/24 block - what I need is 'nyc:192.168.0.0/24'
and 'atl:192.168.0.0/24', for example.
Is this your type of situation Mike?
Does this make sense Dennis?
--
Don McMorris Jr.
| Operations Manager
| Equinox Software Inc. "The Evergreen Experts"
| Direct: 1.770.709.5569
| Toll-free: 1.877.Open.ILS (1.877.673.6457) x5569
| E-Mail: dmcmorris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| Web: http://www.esilibrary.com
Other related posts:
