Removed the L3 template summary change in the back-end

SopheakMang
Building a reputation

Removed the L3 template summary change in the back-end

Dear Team ,

 

I have customer that has branches which has different subnet mask for 192.168.0.0/16

 

some of their branches use /25 , some /26 , /27 etc .

 

we have 2 hubs (DC and DR).

 

As checked template  can config only one specific subnet-mask for one template for example /25 or /26

 

so to accomplish this , i create template based on subnet-mask . Example : template/25 , template/26 ... then assign each branch based on that.

 

+problem comes when adding this.

 

All routes to each branches are getting spinning status. so i opened many cases that can't solve my problem , only one engineer that he can support me and solve the problem back to normal to what i desire. He said route get status spinning cuz of template summary at the backend.

 

so , he removed the L3 template summary change in the back-end ,

Therefore i want to ask :

Is template summary enable by default ? so when new customer , do i have to open case and tell them to disable all the time ? Can you help confirm ? as this is at the backend , i can't config that , only TAC engineer.

4 Replies 4
PhilipDAth
Kind of a big deal
Kind of a big deal

If you are referring to having multiple templates with overlapping subnets not being allowed by default - then yes, only support can disable this check.

SopheakMang
Building a reputation

Dear Philip ,

How about change the default behavior of loose subnet ?

mean that i config each MX lan's subnet from the template , it always got error and back to /19 all the time , as i try to config them as /24. when open case , they says they need to disable loose subnet. is that also need support too ?

Your design is not typically - typically networks have the same size LANs at each spoke?

 

With such a large amount of private address space do you know why they used prefixes small then /24?

SopheakMang
Building a reputation

Hi bro , as they need to keep their existing subnet , so we have no choice to do. Only this way as they implement VLSM.
Get notified when there are additional replies to this discussion.