topic Re: port routing difference between context rb 1 and interface? in Data Center (VDX)

port routing difference between context rb 1 and interface?

mbze430 — Mon, 01 Apr 2024 18:41:03 GMT

Once again I am confused with the context between rbridge and interface to assign an ip address.

If I wanted to connect a port, TE 1/0/24 to an internet firewall/router.

Which one is the correct context to ?

#conf
#int te 1/0/24
#no switchport
#ip address 192.0.0.1/30

or (Extreme Network OS Layer 3 Routing configuration Guide, 7.4.0; pg. 72)
#conf
#rb 1
#ip route 192.0.0.1/30 tengigabitethernet 1/0/24

Re: port routing difference between context rb 1 and interface?

Michael_Morey — Tue, 02 Apr 2024 13:38:36 GMT

An IP route is not the same thing as an IP address. The route simply says to send traffic destined to X network out of Y interface.

Your first config would configure the physical interface with a static IP address

Your second config is incorrectly formed as you are using a host IP with a CIDR greater than 32. You would need to use the network IP if you want to use /30 which would would tell the VDX to send all traffic destined to subnet 192.0.0.0/30 out of TE 1/0/24. If you were using the first config already, the static route would be unnecessary as the only other IP in this subnet, .2, should be directly connected to this interface.

Also, the same guide/page you are quoting clearly states:

"The interface you use for the static route’s next hop must have at least one IP address configured on it"

If your interface was configured for 10.0.0.1/30 for example then the static route of "ip route 192.0.0.0/30 te 1/0/24" would send all traffic destined to 192.0.0.1 and 192.0.0.2, out of te 1/0/24, which would hit 10.0.0.2, where the next hop would be determined by the entries on that device.

Re: port routing difference between context rb 1 and interface?

mbze430 — Wed, 03 Apr 2024 12:58:43 GMT

at least for me, when someone else explain it, it makes more sense. Thanks!