[deleted]

Comments

• hendu@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  Do your existing subnets need to be as big as they are? If not, you could shrink them to fit more subnets in.

  source

  • irmadlad@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

    That’s something to consider.

    source
• frongt@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  172.16.0.0/12 has just over a million addresses. Less if you subnet it, obviously. What in the world are you doing that you’ve exhausted all of those?

  source
• litchralee@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  For my own networks, I’ve been using IPv6 subnets for years now, and have NAT64 translation for when they need to access Legacy IP (aka IPv4) resources on the public Internet.

  Between your two options, I’m more inclined to recommend the second solution, because although it requires renumbering existing containers to the new subnet, you would still have one subnet for all your containers, but it’s bigger now. Whereas the first solution would either: A) preclude containers on the first bridge from directly talking to containers on the second bridge, or B) you would have to enable some sort of awful NAT44 translation to make the two work together.

  So if IPv6 and its massive, essentially-unlimited ULA subnets are not an option, then I’d still go with the second solution, which is a bigger-but-still-singular subnet.

  source

  • irmadlad@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

    I know I’ll smoke a turd in hell for this but, I am not very IPv6 knowledgeable. Old head, old school, old ways. I would seem to solve a lot of problems tho. Perhaps I should spool up to 2025. LOL

    source
• CameronDev@programming.dev ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  I usually do the later when it happens to me.

  source

  • irmadlad@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

    Not sure why someone downvoted you. I don’t really pay it much attention unless it’s someone I’m replying to. I think if you’re going to downvote somebody, you should at the very least give a plausible reason.

    source