VPLS load balancing and failover

RouterOS Forwarding Protocols
1

Hi,

using VPLS (and MPLS) is possible to obtain the similar bahaivor for duplex/failover, in the same way as OSPF and L3 classic routing from this article http://blog.butchevans.com/2008/10/using-ospf-to-create-full-duplex-behaviour-for-wireless-links/ ?

thanks
Davide

2

Its possible to use ospf to have full redundancy in network, and having MPLS (VPLS) to automaticly change “route” (MPLS tag) from CPE to PE (core) to have redundancy.

3

I’m planning to build full duplex backbone using ptmp between 1 ap and 2 stations like this: S -----AP----- S.
Thinking of 4x4 MIMO panels and OSPF with VPLS instead of EoIP to max out Speed and MTU.
Background is to avoid wasting frequencies in a scenario like this: S —AP_AP— S
Do you think that’s feasible? If yes, how? Example?

Thanks in advance

4

Just use wds in this setup, and bridge. Don’t hassle with eoip, VPLS etc.

5

thanks for your reply!

that’s what I’m currently doing with 2x2 only chains.
But in future setups I want a fdx/failover solution by using the 4x4 with ospf
and doing 2x2 for TX and 2x2 for RX on both AP and Station panels (WiBox) and the relatively new RB912UAG-5HPnD-OUT with additional 2x2 card.
I’m curious whether the pseudo-fdx solution that is around in this and other forums
and mainly designed for ptp links would work in my sketched ptmp setup
which in my opinion could work by using vpls tunnel instead of eoip
on each 4x4 link.
Like this more detailed diagram:


Station WiBox
(RB912UAG-5HPnD-OUT + add. card)
TX RX
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
RX TX
AP WiBox
(RB912UAG-5HPnD-OUT + add. card)
TX RX
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
RX TX
(RB912UAG-5HPnD-OUT + add. card)
Station WiBox

what do you think?

6

what you want is is bounding, but as I see your setup, you plan to have just one RB and use 2 wlan cards? then the MPLS OSPF etc are still overkill and for no use. However,If you have 2 RB boards, it might be a solution. But still, I would try not to use it. The less logic the radio have, the more resources are left for sending packages. Its also much easier, than hassle with MPLS, routing etc etc.

I would consider something from http://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Manual:Interface/Bonding as long as your plan is a “point to point” link A-B-C-D etc etc.

If you plan to do a ring,mesh and so on, the MPLS etc would be nice. eg A-B-C-D-A + B-D. MPLS works well as a “non defined cloud” and random connections. Not a difined from point A to point C trough point B.