2xRB's one load balancing, one hotspot interconnected

RouterOS General
1

Hi there,
I’m considering load balancing a few lines that we have to use with our hotspot system. But I would like to know if anyone can see any issues that may occur because of it. For example by having two routers (each doing a job) will load balancing work? Will data be chopped causing issues to the users or with things like VoIP.


RB-A) RB450G - Load balance 4x ADSL lines; 1 port to hotspot router
RB-B) RB450G - hotspot unit

Wired so that: RB-A → RB-B → User

The IP addressing of one ISP line should be passed to the RB-B unit.

2

Nope, works fine for me. Actually does all of this on one RB100, including Hotspot, but wanted to get a clear picture of exact bandwidth use on 4 ADSL, PCC load balance. Have also got a 4 ADSL bonded line selution on same router. Moved 4 ADSL PCC configuration onto RB450 and route traffic from RB1100 to RB450. Is running very nice. Pings is actually a bit better on PCC, still want to have a look and find why.

3

Thanks for your reply.

I’m glad to hear it works well for you.

By any chance would it be possible to have a look at your configuration to see how you’ve got it setup please?

4

The first two rules capture users in my uncap address list and route them to the RB450. All the rest of the users is routed to the default route which is a bonded Cisco router with 4 ADSL’s. The next rules is a classic PCC setup, as described in the WIKI, doing the 4 ADSL load balancing. If you import them like this, they are disabled at this time because the exact code is on the RB450 which is doing the balancing at this time. In order for every thing to work on RB1100, i would disable first to roules and enable rest of the roules. Of cause the PPPoE connection is also made from the RB1100 to the ADSL’s at that time and also you have to set up routes in ip-routes for the routing marks in the mangle rules

add action=mark-connection chain=prerouting comment="Merk Uncap Data" \
    disabled=no in-interface=ether1 new-connection-mark=Uncap-Data \
    passthrough=yes src-address-list=Uncap
add action=mark-routing chain=prerouting comment="Uncap Traffic na 5 Port" \
    connection-mark=Uncap-Data disabled=no in-interface=ether1 \
    new-routing-mark=to_5_Port passthrough=no src-address-list=Uncap
add action=mark-connection chain=prerouting comment="Uncap traffic PPC 1" \
    disabled=yes in-interface=ether1 new-connection-mark=Uncap1_conn \
    passthrough=yes per-connection-classifier=src-address:4/0 \
    src-address-list=Uncap
add action=mark-connection chain=prerouting comment="Uncap traffic PPC  2" \
    disabled=yes in-interface=ether1 new-connection-mark=Uncap2_conn \
    passthrough=yes per-connection-classifier=src-address:4/1 \
    src-address-list=Uncap
add action=mark-connection chain=prerouting comment="Uncap traffic PPC  3" \
    disabled=yes in-interface=ether1 new-connection-mark=Uncap3_conn \
    passthrough=yes per-connection-classifier=src-address:4/2 \
    src-address-list=Uncap
add action=mark-connection chain=prerouting comment="Uncap traffic PPC  4" \
    disabled=yes in-interface=ether1 new-connection-mark=Uncap4_conn \
    passthrough=yes per-connection-classifier=src-address:4/3 \
    src-address-list=Uncap
add action=mark-routing chain=prerouting comment="Uncap 1 routing mark." \
    connection-mark=Uncap1_conn disabled=yes in-interface=ether1 \
    new-routing-mark=to_uncap1 passthrough=no
add action=mark-routing chain=prerouting comment="Uncap 2 routing mark." \
    connection-mark=Uncap2_conn disabled=yes in-interface=ether1 \
    new-routing-mark=to_uncap2 passthrough=no
add action=mark-routing chain=prerouting comment="Uncap 3 routing mark." \
    connection-mark=Uncap3_conn disabled=yes in-interface=ether1 \
    new-routing-mark=to_uncap3 passthrough=no
add action=mark-routing chain=prerouting comment="Uncap 4 routing mark." \
    connection-mark=Uncap4_conn disabled=yes in-interface=ether1 \
    new-routing-mark=to_uncap4 passthrough=no