Multiple BGP Dynamic clients behind single IP NAT
Google suggests that FRR does support that, differentiating between router-id or asn or even port numbers However all I see is that it produces conflict/collision. Any insight would be appreciated. Best, joe
All peers are differentiated by the originating ip address. All the dynamic peers behind the NAT, will all appear to have the same ip address but different originating ports. FRR will only look at the ip address of the incoming connection and do exactly what you are experiencing. donald On Wed, Apr 29, 2026 at 4:57 PM Joe Maimon <jmaimon@jmaimon.com> wrote:
Google suggests that FRR does support that, differentiating between router-id or asn or even port numbers
However all I see is that it produces conflict/collision.
Any insight would be appreciated.
Best,
joe _______________________________________________ frog mailing list -- frog@lists.frrouting.org To unsubscribe send an email to frog-leave@lists.frrouting.org
On 29 Apr 2026, at 22:00, Joe Maimon wrote:
Google suggests that FRR does support that, differentiating between router-id or asn or even port numbers
AI is known, and I’ve experienced it especially w.r.t. FRR — to hallucinate.
However all I see is that it produces conflict/collision.
Any insight would be appreciated.
Hmm… explain how you’ll route IPs to a NAT and the NAT would know to route to the right IPs behind it… why not have the BGP session on the NAT device, and the NAT device have the BGP sessions to the non-NATted IPs ? Would love to know/understand this use case, as you are basically making an IPv6 motivation. --- Hendrik Visage hvisage@hevis.co.za HeViS.Co Systems Pty Ltd https://www.envisage.co.za
The use case is disseminating IP reputation via-ebgp-mh as cookie cutter as possible. hvisage@hevis.co.za wrote:
On 29 Apr 2026, at 22:00, Joe Maimon wrote:
Google suggests that FRR does support that, differentiating between router-id or asn or even port numbers AI is known, and I’ve experienced it especially w.r.t. FRR — to hallucinate.
However all I see is that it produces conflict/collision.
Any insight would be appreciated. Hmm… explain how you’ll route IPs to a NAT and the NAT would know to route to the right IPs behind it… why not have the BGP session on the NAT device, and the NAT device have the BGP sessions to the non-NATted IPs ?
Would love to know/understand this use case, as you are basically making an IPv6 motivation. ---
Hendrik Visage
hvisage@hevis.co.za
HeViS.Co Systems Pty Ltd
Sounds like a great case for IPv6 as you won’t need the NAT :) FRR can do AF IPv4 over IPv6 connections Else tunnels… On 26 May 2026, at 22:31, Joe Maimon wrote: The use case is disseminating IP reputation via-ebgp-mh as cookie cutter as possible. hvisage@hevis.co.za<mailto:hvisage@hevis.co.za> wrote: On 29 Apr 2026, at 22:00, Joe Maimon wrote: Google suggests that FRR does support that, differentiating between router-id or asn or even port numbers AI is known, and I’ve experienced it especially w.r.t. FRR — to hallucinate. However all I see is that it produces conflict/collision. Any insight would be appreciated. Hmm… explain how you’ll route IPs to a NAT and the NAT would know to route to the right IPs behind it… why not have the BGP session on the NAT device, and the NAT device have the BGP sessions to the non-NATted IPs ? Would love to know/understand this use case, as you are basically making an IPv6 motivation. Hendrik Visage hvisage@hevis.co.za<mailto:hvisage@hevis.co.za> HeViS.Co Systems Pty Ltd https://www.envisage.co.za --- Hendrik Visage hvisage@hevis.co.za HeViS.Co Systems Pty Ltd https://www.envisage.co.za
participants (3)
-
Donald Sharp -
hvisage＠hevis.co.za -
Joe Maimon