WAN failover on RB2011UiAS

Hi,
I have RB2011UiAS router, with the following interfaces on the ports

[admin@PSI] /interface> print
Flags: D - dynamic, X - disabled, R - running, S - slave
# NAME TYPE ACTUAL-MTU L2MTU MAX-L2MTU MAC-ADDRESS
0 RS 1WAN ether 1500 1598 4074 D4:CA:6D:0A:
1 R 2LAN ether 1500 1598 4074 D4:CA:6D:0A:
2 R 3VoIP ether 1500 1598 4074 D4:CA:6D:0A:
3 R 4WIFI ether 1500 1598 4074 D4:CA:6D:0A:
4 RS 5WAN_10MBIT ether 1500 1598 4074 D4:CA:6D:0A:
5 R 6LTE_BUP ether 1500 1598 2028 D4:CA:6D:0A:
6 ether7 ether 1500 1598 2028 D4:CA:6D:0A:
7 ether8 ether 1500 1598 2028 D4:CA:6D:0A:
8 ether9 ether 1500 1598 2028 D4:CA:6D:0A:
9 ether10 ether 1500 1598 2028 D4:CA:6D:0A:
10 sfp1 ether 1500 1598 4074 D4:CA:6D:0A:
11 R bridge1 bridge 1500 1598 D4:CA:6D:0A

WAN (port #0) and WAN_10MBIT (port #5) are wireless internet connections from one provider, there are two because we bought new hw and also kept the old one as a backup. These two are in a bridge

[admin@PSI] > /interface bridge port print
Flags: X - disabled, I - inactive, D - dynamic

INTERFACE BRIDGE PRIORITY PATH-COST HORIZON

0 1WAN bridge1 0x80 10 none
1 5WAN_10MBIT bridge1 0x80 10 none

Routing rules are setup so if the newer antenna is up, it is used (rule #1), otherwise the older antenna is used if up (rule #2)

[admin@PSI] > /ip route print
Flags: X - disabled, A - active, D - dynamic, C - connect, S - static, r - rip, b - bgp, o - ospf, m - mme,
B - blackhole, U - unreachable, P - prohibit

DST-ADDRESS PREF-SRC GATEWAY DISTANCE

0 A S 0.0.0.0/0 10.2.3.73 3
1 S 0.0.0.0/0 10.2.3.65 5
2 S 0.0.0.0/0 192.168.80.1 7
3 ADC 10.2.3.64/29 10.2.3.66 bridge1 0
4 ADC 10.2.3.72/29 10.2.3.74 bridge1 0
5 ADC 192.168.3.0/24 192.168.3.1 2LAN 0
6 ADC 192.168.4.0/23 192.168.4.254 2LAN 0
7 ADC 192.168.7.0/24 192.168.7.1 3VoIP 0
8 ADC 192.168.10.0/23 192.168.10.254 4WIFI 0
9 A S 192.168.30.0/24 192.168.3.24 10
10 ADC 192.168.30.189/32 192.168.30.254 <ovpn-tereza.do… 0
11 ADC 192.168.30.191/32 192.168.30.254 <ovpn-zbynek.po… 0
12 ADC 192.168.30.194/32 192.168.30.254 <ovpn-tereza.do… 0
13 ADC 192.168.30.196/32 192.168.30.254 <ovpn-flier.ser… 0
14 ADC 192.168.30.198/32 192.168.30.254 <ovpn-tereza.do… 0
15 ADC 192.168.30.200/32 192.168.30.254 <ovpn-ondrej.ci… 0
16 A S 192.168.31.0/24 192.168.3.24 1
17 A S 192.168.32.0/24 192.168.3.24 1
18 ADC 192.168.80.0/24 192.168.80.2 6LTE_BUP 0
19 A S 192.168.106.0/24 192.168.3.24 1

The setup is working fine as described.

I would like to do two things:

  1. Add the third internet connection (LTE modem), and use that one if the first two are down. I have already set-up the interface on port #6, connected the modem and added routing rule (#3) similar to the ones for WAN and WAN_10MBIT, but this setup as it is is not working. When I disable the WAN and WAN_10MBIT interfaces, I can see some traffic going to the modem, but none going out, and internet connection is not working. LTE modem itself is working fine, when I connect it to the PC, it works fine. Static IP (router 192.168.80.2, modem 192.168.80.1) are used, I can ping the modem from the router. Could it be that it is on the router port #6 (other internal switch of the router)? Or am I missing something else?

  2. I believe that the routing rules for the WAN and WAN_10MBIT are setup so the antenna on the provider’s side of the wireless link is pinged to check route state. I would like to modify it so some server in the internet is used for that ( lets say 8.8.8.8 ), to eliminate problems on the providers side. How could that be achieved?

Thank you for your ideas, if any other information is required, just let me know.

Petr

Have you configured a nat statement for your second third connection??

Thanks a lot dgnevans, that did the trick :wink:.

What about the first question, how to modify the routing rules so the ping check does not work with the gateway itself, but with some internet IP?

try this wiki http://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Advanced_Routing_Failover_without_Scripting

I have seen that one before, but I do not quite understand why are the routes added with the routing-mark, so I did not want to use it. But compared to scripting or netwatch, it is quite simple and easy to maintain, so probably I will try that one after all.

which ever route you take there will be some learning some is more fun than others. I prefer the creating of the routes and adding comments to each route makes more sense. the scripts and netwatch can become complicated.