Community discussions

MikroTik App
 
User avatar
trm3
newbie
Topic Author
Posts: 35
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2007 7:36 pm
Location: US, NC, Charlotte
Contact:

Feature Request: Add Connection_Routing_Mark

Mon Aug 02, 2021 9:45 pm

ROS at this time only supports 1 connection mark that lasts the life of the session. This prevents the writing of efficient mangle code to handle a combination of QoS marking and multiple simultaneous WAN ingress/egress pathways. Support of this currently requires creation of an N x M size connection mark matrix with corresponding duplication of rules. Implementation of a connection-routing-mark in parallel with the current connection-mark, both lasting the duration of the session, would provide this functionality with minimal configuration overhead.

The article I wrote showing QoS setup for RingCentral services has many connection-marks and mangle chains. Properly supporting multiple active WAN links with correct routing would become a nightmare of code/configuration duplication...

Tim McKee
WN9Z
 
User avatar
rextended
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
Posts: 11967
Joined: Tue Feb 25, 2014 12:49 pm
Location: Italy
Contact:

Re: Feature Request: Add Connection_Routing_Mark

Mon Aug 02, 2021 11:13 pm

Try to do routing on right point, on routing rules, instead to use mangle for routing, and the needs of mangle decrease...
 
sindy
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
Posts: 10205
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2017 9:19 pm

Re: Feature Request: Add Connection_Routing_Mark

Mon Aug 02, 2021 11:44 pm

What's the "right point" when it comes to routing the response through the interface through which the request has arrived? How can you do that without connection tracking and translation of connection-mark to routing-mark? Or where else than in mangle can you do that translation?
 
trmckee3
just joined
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 9:31 pm
Location: US, NC, Charlotte
Contact:

Re: Feature Request: Add Connection_Routing_Mark

Mon Aug 02, 2021 11:44 pm

Unfortunately not possible.

Each server can be reached via D-NAT from each carrier to a single interior address. Most of these servers do not support multiple interior address on an interface. I know of no way to assign the return traffic to the proper carrier without a session mark. If there were multiple different interior addresses, then yes I could do it that way, but that isn't the case.

If you know of something I have missed I am always looking to learn.
 
User avatar
rextended
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
Posts: 11967
Joined: Tue Feb 25, 2014 12:49 pm
Location: Italy
Contact:

Re: Feature Request: Add Connection_Routing_Mark

Tue Aug 03, 2021 12:00 am

Actually I do not see anything, neither the "The article I wrote showing QoS setup for RingCentral services" on OP.

Seriously, I do not see any link or something...

About the use of routing rules, anything can be without see any rule...
Not all can be "translated" but again, whitout see anything, something can be placed on routing rules.
the needs of mangle decrease...
 
User avatar
anav
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
Posts: 18958
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2018 11:28 pm
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada
Contact:

Re: Feature Request: Add Connection_Routing_Mark

Tue Aug 03, 2021 6:06 pm

Probably this one,
but he should pay you to read it. ;-)

https://netstorage.ringcentral.com/docu ... epaper.pdf
 
trmckee3
just joined
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 9:31 pm
Location: US, NC, Charlotte
Contact:

Re: Feature Request: Add Connection_Routing_Mark

Tue Aug 03, 2021 10:09 pm

nope, that's actually an antique version. Getting something removed/updated once marketing posts it takes literally forever!!!

I posted an article in the Useful user articles group that is specific for Mikrotik ROS, viewtopic.php?f=23&t=176799.
 
Cablenut9
Long time Member
Long time Member
Posts: 542
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2021 5:30 am

Re: Feature Request: Add Connection_Routing_Mark

Thu Aug 05, 2021 4:58 am

This is a great idea, as I have multiple PCC VPN routes as well as potentially multiple WANs and it would be scary hard to add in QoS as well.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: loloski and 69 guests