I don’t see how this configuration is better then the recommended configuration of multiple IPs in different subnets as mentioned in the documentation below.
I setup multichannel over a year ago and never had an issue. It just work.
Apart from that, this setup also avoids the need for subnets, and the discussion/philosophy of having multiple addresses (in the same subnet) pointing to the same resource/interface.
In fact, in retrospect, it is the most elegant solution and the one that works according to the rules.
I fail to understand your derision. (If it was that.)
There as no derision in my comment. Sorry if I worded it wrong.
You do as you wish and I’m glad you shared a solution that work for you. If it help others to get multichannel working, all the better.
I personally find it easier to deal with IPv4 and multiple subnets in my local lan then multiple interfaces on different IP version. Most of my service don’t even have IPv6 addresses as they don’t need it and and can test connectivity a lot more easily my remembering a few digits then an IPv6 address.
It’s not the only solution, just the one I prefer.
I’m not a native English speaker, but your use of “I don’t see how this configuration is better than the recommended configuration”, seemed to point that way.
Oh well, at least is shows alternative methods are available.
