As I know, according to the routing theory, it has no sense to have 2
interfaces on the same net.
At least, on Cisco routers is not allowed.
kind regards.
what if you bridge on one interface, but want to have a second "backup"
interface in case your config/router fscks up with the bridge?
Vriendelijke groeten,
Frank Louwers
As I know, according to the routing theory, it has no sense to have 2
interfaces on the same net.
At least, on Cisco routers is not allowed.
It would make much more sense to have two routers connected to the same subnet... VRRP/HSRP, separate IPv4 and IPv6 routers. If the two interfaces are bridged together, there is no obvious benefit to having a secondary interface, which is sort of what the result below would accomplish. Decent routers would be doing everything in hardware...
Perhaps it would be wise to figure out what they really want, maybe by asking what they think that want, and then telling them how it should be done... If they want to have more bandwidth with two router interfaces, there are better solutions to this problem. If it were seriously a /16 subnet on the customer side, that pretty much means they aren't doing any routing that I would want to have a part of on their side. I hope those are examples with really wacky subnets, because that is pretty unrealistic.
So, no, no good reason. They probably are trying to do something and need some guidance, perhaps they should post what they want to do here. I am sure they will get some "interesting" responses.
Peter