Hello My friends..!
so i am looking for an efficient way to merge my two ISP internet connection
ISP-1=8M=ether-1
ISP-2=8M=ether-2
=====> LAN=16M=ether-3
anyone can guide me into a link or any file that explain in detail how can i do that..?
You can’t.
You can not mix two ISP to go faster, at least you can balance the requests for multiple devices between the two ISP,
but you can not obtain one single connection to a single source with 16Mbps speed.
but i already have one..!
previously i used this guy method and it worked wellhttps://youtu.be/bRsMsJeJiXM. yet it make the CPU high, so just i am looking for another way to apply that..?
As stated by rextended you can’t.
Long version, what is being done in this video is Load Ballancing. Only reason it may seem like bonding in the video is because speed test services usually spawn several connections to test speed and some connections can go to different wan connections.
You will never get the speed of both WAN connections on a single connection. If you are happy with Load Ballancing then there are serveral guides on how to do this on the internet.
This cannot be! With a name like Techsystem, he must be a genius and the worlds expert on configuring the MT just after watching one crappy youtube video.
Who is this rextended cat, who thinks he knows better, anyway. Just because he is responsible for writing half the MT scripts on the planet, like that means anything… doh
What has been done in Italy to provide such solution to business users is based on Multi path TCP and you can read some info about an open project on this https://www.openmptcprouter.com/
However the solution is not cheap as it involves a data center and several VPN connections to it based on how many Wan connections you want to bond.
So you will have to pay for the bandwidth at data center and the inbound traffic should match the sum of what you are trying to combine at your side.
Not a cheap solution just to sum your wan like you described; better thinking at some load balancing config as already mentioned here, it’s cheaper for sure.
Hi accarda, I can do this in any country, I just Buy the local ISPs and connect them all to my house. If you want to play, such what if games.
I have done some testing with OpenMPTCProuter and it works, but to me this is something you only do if you really have to. You are adding additional latency/complexity and costs because you have to rent a cloud server somewhere. In most situations it makes more sense to just pay more for better internet.
lol…hhhh
Hello Mr.rextended..! so i get a lot of answers out there from a very professional people -(you are one of them)- that this can't be done, and well .. i accept that, but just if you can explain in more detail
why that cant happen..? what is the logic that make such thing unobtainable.
i also will be very happy if you guide me to any trusted article that talk about that..!
I think the onus is on you to learn networking… the answers you seek have nothing to do with MT.
Hi
I need more stable internet in a rural place in Africa for a college. Both mobile ISP are quite unstable therefore i wanted to bond 2 connections from different ISPs to provide stable internet. Now reading above it seems it cannot be done to obtain a higher speed. However i don’t need a higher speed. For Example ISP 1 has a 5Mbps Connection and ISP 2 has a 10Mbps connections, i dont expect 15Mbps on any single device (laptop etc). I want more of a balancing/failover scenario.
Scenario 1 - So if ISP 1 goes down all the devices connected still receiving internet from ISP 2. (Failover)
Scenario 2 - is that when both ISPs are operational the connected devices make use of the TOTAL 15Mbps bandwidth between them although any single connected devices having a maximum 10Mbps is not a problem. Is this setup a possibility ?
The further objective once this is achievable is to limit the Mbps in certain offices etc so 1 office gets 3Mbps maximum another gets 2 Mbps etc.
Would appreciate any help on this!
Kind regards
Sure BP, normally I would say start your own new thread, but unlike the original issue, yours is valid.
Basically what you are asking to do is PCC load balancing with the ability to share the USER load between two WANs, as equitably as possible.
In addition you want to be able to use the other wan for ALL connections if one of them goes down.
This is a bit tricky in that PCC load balancing marks part of the outgoing connections and sends them to a particular WAN etc.. If the WAN is dead, that marked traffic will end up not going anywhere, so we have to make sure in IP routes that a path to the other WAN exists…
PCC also involves mangling which can be complex.
/ip route
add check-gateway=ping dst-address=0.0.0.0/0 gateway=ISP1 table=main ( checks to see if wan connection is active every 10 secs )
add check-gateway=ping dst-address=0.0.0.0/0 gateway=ISP2 table=main ( checks to see if wan connection is active every 10 secs )
add dst-address=0.0.0.0/0 gateway=ISP1 table=useWAN1 distance=2 { PCC traffic marked for ISP1 goes through ISP1 }
add dst-address=0.0.0.0/0 gateway=ISP2 table=useWAN1 distance=4 { PCC traffic marked for ISP1 goes out ISP2 when ISP1 is not available }
add dst-address=0.0.0.0/0 gateway=ISP2 table=useWAN2 distance=2 { PCC traffic marked for ISP2 goes through ISP2 }
add dst-address=0.0.0.0/0 gateway=ISP1 table=useWAN2 distance=4 [edit had “2” earlier by mistake] { PCC traffic marked for ISP2 goes out ISP1 when ISP1 is not available }
Next we need to mangle traffic Note you stated that WAN2 had more throughput, so the router selects WAN2 twice for every single selection of WAN1 for sessions.
/mangle
add chain=prerouting action=mark-connection connection-mark=no-mark in-interface-list=LAN
new-connection-mark=Mark-WAN1 dst-address-type=!local passthrough=yes
per-connection-classifier=both-addresses:3/0
add chain=prerouting action=mark-connection connection-mark=no-mark in-interface-list=LAN
new-connection-mark=Mark-WAN2 dst-address-type=!local passthrough=yes
per-connection-classifier=both-addresses:3/1
add chain=prerouting action=mark-connection connection-mark=no-mark in-interface-list=LAN
new-connection-mark=Mark-WAN2 dst-address-type=!local passthrough=yes
per-connection-classifier=both-addresses:3/2
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
add chain=prerouting action=mark-routing connection-mark=Mark-WAN1
new-routing-mark=useWAN1 passthrough=yes
add chain=prerouting action=mark-routing connection-mark=Mark-WAN2
new-routing-mark=useWAN2 passthrough=yes
To ensure any incoming traffic originating from outside the router, IF ANY? (could be port forwarding, could be wireguard VPN remote in ) you would need some additional rules.
Optional…
add chain=prerouting action=mark-connection connection-mark=no-mark in-interface=ISP1
new-connection-mark=Incoming-WAN1 passthrough=yes
add chain=prerouting action=mark-connection connection-mark=no-mark in-interface=ISP2
new-connection-mark=Incoming-WAN2 passthrough=yes
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
add chain=output action=mark-routing connection-mark=Incoming-WAN1
new-routing-mark=useWAN1 passthrough=no
add chain=output action=mark-routing connection-mark=Incoming-WAN2
new-routing-mark=useWAN2 passthrough=no
Thanks so much for your help @anav. I will try to implement as soon as i get a chance.
Kind regards
Its a starter concept, and by no means is designed to fit anyones particular scenario, and thus you will have to adapt as is required.
Hey there,
could you also mention how to ensure the gateway doesnt change much
And if you have 2 wans, you make 3 PCC rules;
3/0, 3/1,3/2
It will distribute the weight to our assigned WAN’s and not cause any issues ? Meaning can we theoretically assign more probability to our system by making more PCC rules as well ?
I was trying to find the option to make a new post but couldnt find it so had to post here
Dont understand your questions killa?
-
The admin has no choice in the matter. The gateway will change based on the active or non-active state of the ISP.
Can you elaborate your concern? -
Yes I made three rules vice two, because the OP stated WAN2 had double the throughput Mbps, and thus it seemed reasonable to share the load more equitably in this manner.
Its not exact but basically states for every session pointed to WAN1, point two sessions at WAN2.
(Note: I had an error in the config above, the last line should have been distance=4.)
- To make new post see here → https://forum.mikrotik.com/viewtopic.php?t=191442
Anav,
I was under the impression from the forum that;
we can have a preferred gateway for traffic to go out to, basically in my PCC setup i can not open emails at a 200mb aggregated system due to config issues
I get the error message 'your session has been logged out due to IP address change" and the Cpanel system flags us a security threat due to this and blocks us in the server automated firewall
so can i set my preferred gateway not to change by some form of sticky connections..?
I read the whole tomas MUM presentation but went with mikroitk’s Marten’s youtube PCC video instead
- OK i will implement that
- did’nt want to Hijack this thread and Just made my 1st post, Thanks
Thomas was doing a load balancing approach of which I am not familiar with…
I use PCC as per discher.
As to your initial question its a matter of better explaining and defining your requirements.
It is not clear what you wish to do with email. Are you talking users email or admins email etc…??
Using ISP emali accounts is problematic when using multiple WANs. I have this scenario at home,
the failover secondary ISP is primary for email traffic ( but only single user )
I require my ISP email for my LAN users to not have a constantly changing gateway/sticky connection (you could say)
Because we get backlisted by the servers firewall as well as banking apps..
Can you take a look at the tread i posted ?
xx Edited xx
i just saw your post on it lol,