3 ms·
> Wth would you want public IPs. Possibly to avoid needing NAT (or VPN) gateway that can handle 100Gbps.
by buzer 1y ago
> Wth would you want public IPs.
Possibly to avoid needing NAT (or VPN) gateway that can handle 100Gbps.
- bombcar 1y agoI don't know what they're doing, but Mikrotik can perhaps route that → https://mikrotik.com/product/ccr2216_1g_12xs_2xq#fndtn-testresults https://mikrotik.com/product/ccr2216_1g_12xs_2xq#fndtn-testr... and is about the cost of their used thing. And I think this would be a banger for IPv6 if they really "need" public IPs.
- dustywusty 1y agoExactly what I came in to say, CCR2216 can do this for < $2k, and does it well.
- xp84 1y agoNo DHCP doesn't mean public IPs nor impact the need for NAT, it just means the hosts have to be explicitly configured with IP addresses, default gateways if they need egress, and DNS. Those IPs you end up assigning manually could be private ones or routable ones. If private, authorized traffic could be bridged onto the network by anything, such as a random computer with 2 NICs, one of which is connected eventually to the Internet and one of which is on the local network. If public, a firewall can control access just as well as using NAT can.
- buzer 1y agoI know, I was specifically answering the question of "why the hell would you want public IPs". I don't know why their network setup wouldn't support DHCP, that's extremely common especially in "enterprise" switches via DHCP forwarding.
- xp84 1y agoOk then yes I agree with you. That was weird