Hi,
Is it possible to make some kind of bonding between two interfaces (ether1 and ether2 both with rocket m5 in a ptp on both sides)using OSPF but with redundance.
My goal is distribute the traffic between the two rockets titannium that I have but with redundance in case if one of them goes down.
How can I do that?
Best regards!
Anybody has the anwser?
Why do you need bonding for that?
OSPF can do “failover” and ECMP to utilize both links.
But I cant understand. Can ospf double bandwidth using 2 o 3 interface using rocket radios?
OSPF don’t, but ECMP do.
So this tutorial is fake? https://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Setup_Dual_Wireless_Link_with_OSPF
Are you really understand picture provided in the article? OSPF is only tool, convenient but not necessary here.
And so, ECMP has nothing to do with it.
Victors0991 … the manual from Wiki is not fake.
Do you see “to be continued? … Complete similar …”.
OSPF is universal tool for path finding.
It can be tailored to push data to particular interfaces so if you tailor it to push data from side “left” to to"right" (“left” and “right” is as on the picture in this manual) with upper lin and data from “right” to left with bottom link you will notice better bandwith for radio links. For radio it makes sense as transmission for radio is “one way”. You can not transmit data in both ways at the sime time so splliting transmission to two links make better bandwith.
Same effect could be achieve with different methods but OSPF gives you in addition the redundancy. If one link fails then the transmission will go with one link.
However OSPF does not double bandwith … it is side effect of pushing data with two links.
But in page that I give you said that ospf with that scenario can souble bandwidth
ECMP is a feature of IP routing, OSPF is a dynamic routing protocol.
ECMP:
So, in certain situations, ECMP can be leveraged to automatically use n number or links between two given sites, with the effect of load balancing, or spreading traffic amongst all of them, effectively enhancing throughput between two given points.
What BartoszP pointed is that as PTPs are half-duplex radio links, OSPF can be used to artificially create a full duplex link, by making OSPF not to use ECMP as it would in a scenario like this image depicts, but actually manipulate interface costs, so that traffic flows like this:
Bridge A ========> Bridge C
Bridge B <======== Bridge D
This way radio A is always Tx’ing to Radio C, and Radio D is Tx’ing to Radio B.
This doesn’t double bandwith for a given direction, but as you move Upload/Download traffic to each link, capacity and specially latency is enhanced for both.
So going back to your question:
My goal is distribute the traffic between the two rockets titannium that I have but with redundance in case if one of them goes down.
How can I do that?
You can use either:
A) Bonding
or
B) OSPF to leverage ECMP so that traffic flows amongst both links.
but not the two at the same time. i.e. OSPF is not needed if you use bonding.
Oooh I understand but wheb we need to use bonding or ospf?
Becauuse I read that bonding is possivle when link are equsl in badwidh and latency
Yes it is possible. But is it the best way to do it?
I’d say try both in your lab (you can setup 4 CHR VMs or a GNS3 lab to emulate the examples you found on wiki) and see what fits better for your situation. There isn’t a default answer to all use cases.
Trying it first in a non production environment, not only you will get familiar with both technologies but you can also perform tests to see how both behave during degradation etc, and know what to expect and how to troubleshoot when you put it in production. And finally this way you can see what fits your setup (and knowledge) better.
Implementation of a technology is only half the job done. You also need troubleshooting and maintenance experience.
Hands on practice is irreplaceable!
To partly answer your question, my instinct says to avoid bonding on wifi links on ISM bands. You need rock solid latency for bonding to work best. And wifi has a lot of jitter, especially when there’s interference. With a little interference the bonding will be worse than having 1 link only without bonding!
OSPF on the other hand is a link state protocol. It doesn’t know if a link is lagging or not. As long as it can communicate with the adjacent router over the link it will consider it good for forwarding packets over it. So it’s not ideal either - but potentially better compared to bonding.
If I were to choose I would prefer a dynamic routing protocol (BGP or OSPF) rather than bonding.
In general, there is no dynamic routing protocol in Mikrotik that will take into consideration the quality of a link so all solutions are susceptible to interference problems. Unless you do some custom work with scripting to automatically remove a link from forwarding packets if it becomes congested due to interference etc.
Becauuse I read that bonding is possivle when link are equsl in badwidh and latencyiñ
But if I have a radio link that give me 30mbps and I want 60 mbps. How can I double the bandwidth to gebt more ?
Don’t look at it as which or both would we deploy, but what’s actually more suitable or comfortable for you; as both will aggregate both links.
Bonding may not be seen as ideal, but as Cha0s wisely said:
So being much easier to setup, bonding would be the first I would try in your situation. OSPF requires understanding and knowledge; if you deploy it by copying & pasting from some internet “recipe”, you’ll be lost in case problems arise.