Multiple Gateways.

RouterOS General
1

Hello,

I am using the following technique to balance http://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Load_Balancing_over_Multiple_Gateways my network link between dedicated link and adsl is working but when it turned to go out for some customers GroupB “ADSL” they can not access my internal servers built using the default route and dst-nat from link dedicated.

Other networks “External Links to other operators’ access to my internal servers works problem only occurs on my internal network when active the route marked out by GrupoB” ADSL "

2

Post the relevant portion of your configuration. Don’t make people guess.

3

ip route
disabled=no distance=1 dst-address=0.0.0.0/0 gateway=xxx.xx.xx.x
routing-mark=“Link Principal” scope=30 target-scope=10
add disabled=no distance=1 dst-address=0.0.0.0/0 gateway=“PPPoE ADSL”
routing-mark=“Link Secundario” scope=30 target-scope=10
disabled=no distance=1 dst-address=0.0.0.0/0 gateway=xxx.xx.xx.x scope=30
target-scope=10

/ip firewall nat
action=masquerade chain=srcnat comment=NAT disabled=no out-interface=
“WAN ether1” src-address=!xxx.xx.xx.xx-xxx.xx.xx.xx
action=masquerade chain=srcnat disabled=no out-interface=“PPPoE ADSL”
src-address=!xxx.xx.xx.xx-xxx.xx.xx.xx
action=dst-nat chain=dstnat comment=
“Redirecionamento Sistema MK-AUTH Externo” disabled=no dst-address=
xxx.xx.xx.xx dst-port=80 protocol=tcp to-addresses=172.31.255.2 to-ports=
80
/ip firewall mangle
action=mark-routing chain=prerouting disabled=no dst-port=80
new-routing-mark=“Link Secundario” passthrough=no protocol=tcp
src-address=10.1.0.0/21


When this turned out by the route marked “Secondary Link” in blue the rule no longer works for the targeted customers for this route.

For other links to other ADSL operators the blue rule works by directing the page to my system without problems.

If disabling the route marked “Secondary Link” the blue rule works without problems redirecting my customers to the system using page http://xxx.xx.xx.xx/admin

4

According to that there shouldn’t be a problem. Traffic subject to destination NAT doesn’t match the mangle rule, so it should be using the normal routing table. I don’t see what’s wrong with that configuration.