MX95 and router IP's

MrAliC1976
New here

MX95 and router IP's

Hi all, 

Scenario 

ISP has provided a WAN public /30 and a LAN Public IP  /29 which routes to the /30 

I have two MX95's which I need to configure in some form of HA. 

I can obviously configure the /30 as an uplink IP on one of the MX's however, I'm confused as to it it's possible to use the /29 instead?

5 Replies 5
rwiesmann
A model citizen

I guess the /30 is the WAN IP of the Device the ISP provided to you. 

This means the range you can use is the /29

If it is this way, you can not use the /30 and you have to uses the addresses out of the /29 for the MX

alemabrahao
Kind of a big deal

Both MXes need to be on the same subnet, that is, you need at least a /29 for the public network.

The option you have in this case is to configure a private IP on the WAN of the MXes, but for that you need to have a NAT for the exit to the internet for this private subnet.

I don't know if you understand?

 

https://community.meraki.com/t5/Security-SD-WAN/Configuring-virtual-ip-addresses-on-MX-HA-warm-spare...

I am not a Cisco Meraki employee. My suggestions are based on documentation of Meraki best practices and day-to-day experience.

Please, if this post was useful, leave your kudos and mark it as solved.
jphamwd
Here to help

We HA our MX85s and are not hosting anything behind them

-/29 WAN public, no LAN publics needed

-Single handoff from ISP that is plugged into our LAN switch as a breakout for the MXs

-Use 3 IPs, 1 VIP, and each MX

 

 

DarrenOC
Kind of a big deal
Kind of a big deal

As already mentioned you need 3 Public IPs, 1 for each MX and one for the VIP.

Darren OConnor | doconnor@resalire.co.uk
https://www.linkedin.com/in/darrenoconnor/

I'm not an employee of Cisco/Meraki. My posts are based on Meraki best practice and what has worked for me in the field.
Inderdeep
Kind of a big deal

correctly said by @DarrenOC .. Generally needed 3 Public IPs for an HA setup 

1- Device 

2- Spare

3-VIP

www.thenetworkdna.com
Get notified when there are additional replies to this discussion.