I’m trying to configure my RB493 as more of a smart switch than router. I’ve got Eth2 and Eth3 connected to two transparent (WDS) wireless bridges that are connected to the same network. I want to bond these two interfaces with balance-rr so I’ll get a redundant (and faster) link to my network. Is it possible to bond these links transparently?
I might be wrong, but having two APs on the same network (frequency) will cause interference between the two. One will have to be powered off and switched on some how if the one goes down.
It should be easy on a wired network to do the automatic failover, but I’m not so sure about on wireless using two APs. If someone has an answer, I’d like to know as we could use some redundancy on our highsites!
I’m running the wireless as transparent bridges, so they are “invisible”. Each pair of bridges has been configured to connect only to it’s partner. So there shouldn’t be any interference (as long as I mount them far enough away from each other). The way I’ve got this configured, it should be the same as a wired configuration. I’ve only been able to find info where the bridged interface is given an IP. This would mean I’d have to configure the existing firewalls on the other end of the RB493s to use them as this new IP as the default gateway, right? I was hoping to make this transparent as well (meaning no IP configuration)… Essentially, I thought I could just set the ports to use STP or RSTP just like a smart switch?
Let me understand your setup;
Do you have the following:
RB493 (A) ether1 → AP (A) (bridged) → Client (A) (bridged) → RB493 (B) ether1
RB493 (A) ether2 → AP (B) (bridged) → Client (B) (bridged) → RB493 (B) ether2
OR
RB493 (A) ether1 → AP (A) (bridged) → Multiple clients
RB493 (A) ether2 → AP (B) (bridged) → Same multiple clients
Or have I got it wrong?
This is the configuration that I’m using…
Try this: http://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Manual:Bonding_Examples
you don’t need to configure EOIP since you are using WDS.
I’m wondering if it might be better to configure these as bridge interfaces since that makes them “invisible”?
I guess if I go with bridging instead of bonding, I lose the potential speed increase of the link? Perhaps I can bond the interfaces and then bridge the bonded interface?
I’m trying to keep this all layer 2.
Building A will have an RB1100 that will act as my ISP router. I have an additional firewall connected to it with a public IP that my local lan is behind. It will use the RB1100 as it’s gateway. Connected to the RB1100 will be wireless bridge A and wireless bridge B that are connected via WDS to two more wireless bridges which are then connected to an RB493. To this RB493 is another firewall that my local lan is behind. My goal is to give this remote firewall a publically accessible IP from the range given to me by my ISP. This is so I can create a VPN between these two firewalls.
I still haven’t implemented this as other things have come up…but here is what I’m trying to configure…
Building A will have an RB1100. Building B, C and D will have an RB493. The wireless links are made with UBNT NanoBridges and configured to be transparent (assigned private IP for management only). This is all Layer 2 on the same subnet utilizing public IPs from my ISP for the corporate firewalls at each location, each routing to Building A to get internet access.
Does bonding still seem to make the most sense? Also, the RBs at each location will need IPs on the same subnet as the firewalls for them to all talk, right (public IP assigned by ISP)?
