| 1 |
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 5:35 PM, Randy Barlow |
| 2 |
<randy@×××××××××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 4 |
> Hash: SHA1 |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> On 01/20/2013 12:37 AM, William Kenworthy wrote: |
| 7 |
>> So what is usually recommended and works for this scenario? |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> I personally use a bridged interface that allows my VMs to be on the |
| 10 |
> "physical" network. That works out pretty well. In my use case, it's |
| 11 |
> the same subnet as the host, but it should be possible to use VLANs to |
| 12 |
> accomplish having them on a separate subnet. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
There's no requirement that they be on separate layer 2 segments if |
| 15 |
you want them to be on separate layer 3 subnets. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Either statically configure the IPs, or: |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
For IPv4: Have DHCP grant IPs from different pools based on source MAC |
| 20 |
or declared hostname. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
For IPv6: Use DHCPv6 rather than SLAAC, and follow the same principles |
| 23 |
as for DHCP-for-IPv4. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Sure, giving them separate layer 2 segments helps encapsulation (and |
| 26 |
may make things easier from an autoconfiguration standpoint, |
| 27 |
depending), but it's not strictly necessary from a technology point of |
| 28 |
view. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
:wq |
Archives