In exact that situation on every router you can use static routing: .... thank you, I am happy for this response, but until now each client that is behind the routers is not connected to each other. for example: the network R1 (192.168.11.0/24 ) can not communicate with the network R3 (192.168.33.0...
I want to combine 3 network with 3 router. with the goal of each network that is behind the router can communicate with each other, with a topology as follows:
when you have many LAN interfaces - use src-address instead of in-interface I totally agree with your suggestion, and what if I define src-address by using address list, so it can otherwise become src-address-list ? for example routes w/o routing-mark should do failover that means: if the routing-m...
perhaps, I have any idea with this topology and there are several ways, that might help... /ip address add address=90.225.80.1/24 broadcast=90.225.80.255 comment="" disabled=no \ interface=Internet1 network=90.225.80.0 add address=90.225.90.1/24 broadcast=90.225.90.255 comment=""...
I think you've forgot to include the statement of the udp protocol, try this code... and good luck /ip fi na add action=dst-nat chain=dstnat comment="AccessTo DVR " disabled=no \ dst-address=PUBLIC_IP dst-port=8888 protocol=tcp to-addresses=\ DVR_IP to-ports=80 add action=dst-nat chain=dst...
I have applied the rule as http://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Manual:PCC but problems still arise, that is when 1 WAN connection is lost, whether in this way has included the failover rule? secondly, if each client with a different port (example: eth3 ==> marketing , eth2 ===> HRD , and so on) ..... do i...
Thank before guys.......
I am still confused with NTH arrangement on my rule, I had tried with the method on 3 WANs and working properly, but after I applied on 11 WANs was not running well, I hope to all of you who are here, to provide the best solutions, thank you
I want to make load balancing and fail over with 11 WAN, while we know the type of NTH and PCC, what is the best way for the type of load balancing like this, thanks