I use successfully load balancing with failover between my ext. DSL modem (192.168.0.254) and external LTAP (192.168.88.1)
with recursive address resolution (8.8.8.x and 80.67.169.x are DSN servers I use to ping for connection test)
In such situation I can tell the two DHCP clients to not add a default route and I add following routes manually:
/ip route
add check-gateway=ping comment="declare ping-test-GW-1 as GW with distance 1" distance=1 gateway=8.8.8.8 routing-mark=to_WAN1
add check-gateway=ping comment="declare 2nd ping-test-GW-1 as GW with distance 1" distance=1 gateway=80.67.169.12 routing-mark=to_WAN1
add check-gateway=ping comment="declare ping-test-GW-2 as GW with distance 2" distance=1 gateway=8.8.4.4 routing-mark=to_WAN2
add check-gateway=ping comment="declare 2nd ping-test-GW-2 as GW with distance 1" distance=1 gateway=80.67.169.40 routing-mark=to_WAN2
add check-gateway=ping comment="Backup to DSL if LTE problem" distance=2 gateway=8.8.8.8
add check-gateway=ping comment="Backup to DSL if LTE problem" distance=2 gateway=80.67.169.12
add check-gateway=ping comment="Backup to LTE if DSL problem" distance=3 gateway=8.8.4.4
add check-gateway=ping comment="Backup to LTE if DSL problem" distance=3 gateway=80.67.169.40
add comment="route to reach ping-test-GW-2" distance=1 dst-address=8.8.4.4/32 gateway=192.168.88.1 scope=10
add comment="route to reach ping-test-GW-1" distance=1 dst-address=8.8.8.8/32 gateway=192.168.0.254 scope=10
add comment="route to reach ping-test-GW-1" distance=1 dst-address=80.67.169.12/32 gateway=192.168.0.254 scope=10
add comment="route to reach ping-test-GW-2" distance=1 dst-address=80.67.169.40/32 gateway=192.168.88.1 scope=10
Now with internal LTE modem in the Audience LTE, I have two issues:
ROS adds default route 0.0.0.0 for the LTE connection (gateway used is WAN2-LTE, the LTE interface name)
I have no more the external LTE modem IP that I can use to create my routes
I tried to replace the IP address by the interface name “WAN-LTE”, but this seems not to work or conflicts with the dynamic
route added by ROS… below is what I tried but fails…
add comment="route to reach ping-test-GW-2" distance=1 dst-address=8.8.4.4/32 gateway=WAN2-LTE scope=10
add comment="route to reach ping-test-GW-1" distance=1 dst-address=8.8.8.8/32 gateway=192.168.0.254 scope=10
add comment="route to reach ping-test-GW-1" distance=1 dst-address=80.67.169.12/32 gateway=192.168.0.254 scope=10
add comment="route to reach ping-test-GW-2" distance=1 dst-address=80.67.169.40/32 gateway=WAN2-LTE scope=10
Any help appreciated…
How can I get rid of this route created for the internal LTE modem ?
Ok, after some digging and looking through the Wiki, I see this info:
Routes with interface as a gateway
Value of gateway can be specified as an interface name instead of the nexthop IP address. Such route has following special properties:
Unlike connected routes, routes with interface nexthops are not used for nexthop lookup.
This means no recursive lookup…
Is there a way to get or assign an IP address for the internal LTE modem of the Audience to trigger nexthop lookup?
Or is the only solution to no more do “PCC load balance” on DSL and LTE, but only assign part of load to DSL, and rest routes without any marking to the
default (now LTE) interface as it has a 0.0.0.0 dynamic default route created
(PS: Not sure anybody gets what I am asking for or try to achieve… )
I found the way to disable the default route creation: it is an option in the APN for the LTE modem.
Have not found to make recursive next hop work on built in LTE modem, therefore removed for now the
check GW with ping test on that connection.
If someone has an idea I will take it…
I don’t know what problem you have?
You can not use a “Add default Route” in APN settings and just the connection will be established as always. You discover it - perfect.
[admin@MikroTik] > interface lte apn set [find default ] add-default-route=no
Next is just simple use this lte1 interface like the same as tunnels, means like this:
a) simple static route
/ip route add distance=1 gateway=lte1
b) simple rr static route
/ip route add dst-address=Host1 gateway=lte1 scope=10
/ip route add distance=1 gateway=Host1 check-gateway=ping
Modem in miniPCIe slot give us a lte1 interface but we not use a dhcp-client - we just use a route via this lte1 interface. Just because.
Write your question if I not answer you properly.
The second route you propose to add does not get resolved recursively, it remains “unreachable”. The first one is reachable.
It can only work if you provide an IP address for “gateway” but not if you provide an interface (as written in the WIKI).
You can do similar behavior by own scripts.
Checking traffic by traffic monitor;
Do ping;s etc. by special route table
Modify status of dynamic rule in main by Route Filter e.g.
/routing filter add chain=dynamic-in distance=2 prefix=0.0.0.0 prefix-length=0 scope=30 set-disabled=yes target-scope=10
Other ROS can check your LTE and inject you cmd by /system ssh-exec and his own route table
…
I know that is “reinvent the wheel” strategy but I forgot that RRoutng not work at interface who not have own next-hop at second site. Sorry for that.
I think this is the end of your post.
You can give this idea into support@mikrotik.com because only developer-s can do a “hack” on this like invent a passthrough mode.
)