Community discussions

MUM Europe 2020
 
jober
Long time Member
Long time Member
Topic Author
Posts: 692
Joined: Fri May 28, 2004 12:16 pm
Location: Louisiana,USA

SUPER feature request

Fri Jul 16, 2004 10:45 pm

I am looking for a way to setup one Mikrotik in the colo room before the backbone line and another on the other end of 4 or more ADSL modems.
I would need to run the EOIP tunnal for the traffic and bond the ADSL lines together so that the traffic up and down would balance across all the lines at the same time.
We are using a Software product (MLIP)to do this with now but the price is killing us to install new customers. There is also a hardware solution from the same company but it's three lines only and it's $850.00.
I have found one other company(Firebrick) that has a hardware solution but it is also very pricy. Not sure if this is something you guys can handle but it can't hurt to ask.
This feature would also be graet for high end customers that need backup lines in place. They could use a wireless link and a ADSL line, bond the two to dubble the bandwidth and if the wireless goes down the traffic knows to only go out the ADSL.
:idea:
 
gbricaire
just joined
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 9:07 am

answer

Tue Jul 20, 2004 10:22 am

I have asked something like this before, apparently there are ways to implement this, but it will requiere some configuration...right forum?
What is the name of the company you are using right now?? MLIP ???
 
tully
MikroTik Support
MikroTik Support
Posts: 505
Joined: Fri May 28, 2004 11:07 am

Tue Jul 20, 2004 10:46 am

If you have to get DHCP client addresses for each DSL, then in v2.9 we will have multiple DHCP clients for this.

If you have static addresses, then you can put them together now using masquerading and multipath routing.

John
 
KimC
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Posts: 95
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 3:16 pm
Location: Denmark

Tue Jul 20, 2004 10:45 pm

We all want Mikrotik to implement a dsl-concentrator as jober asks for. It would be really cool to be able to get 6 Mbit/s from 3 lines with each 2 Mbit/s. And sure - it is possible !!!!!

The company name is ePipe. Web on http://www.ml-ip.com/ Have a look your self.

Regards
Kim C
 
jober
Long time Member
Long time Member
Topic Author
Posts: 692
Joined: Fri May 28, 2004 12:16 pm
Location: Louisiana,USA

More info needed

Wed Jul 21, 2004 1:23 am

Tully,
Would it be possible for you to give a simple test config on what you are saying will work. Man oh man! If this works you are going to watch your sales double.
Will this setup know if one of the four ADSL lines goes down and not send traffic thru it. Then add it back once it comes back up again. Or if one line goes down will it kill the whole connection.
The ML-IP software is good but it's way over priced. http://www.ml-ip.com http://www.ml-ip.com/html/infocenter/ml ... lease.html

james@skycom1.com
 
jober
Long time Member
Long time Member
Topic Author
Posts: 692
Joined: Fri May 28, 2004 12:16 pm
Location: Louisiana,USA

MLPPP

Wed Jul 21, 2004 1:49 am

There's a few ISPs in the UK that use MLPPP on a 1700 Cisco router to do the job, but I'm still reading up on that one to see if it's possible with out the DSLAM control. One day I think NO the next I think YES :?
KimC, maybe you know? :wink:
My servers sit between the DSLAM and the backbone lines so I don’t get the extra traffic going in and out twice.
I found a Linux install CD that you can boot up on, plug in the ADSL modems, add IPs and go.
http://www.freestuffjunction.co.uk/bondedcd.shtml
Maybe it can help.
 
jober
Long time Member
Long time Member
Topic Author
Posts: 692
Joined: Fri May 28, 2004 12:16 pm
Location: Louisiana,USA

Help me understand

Wed Jul 21, 2004 4:28 am

I think I'm missing something here, this is only load balancing and it does not provide failover
Info from 2.8 docs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More than one gateway for one destination network may be used. This approach is called 'Equal-Cost Multi-Path Routing' and is used for load balancing (Note that this does not provide failover). With ECMP, a router potentially has several available next hops towards any given destination. A new gateway is chosen for each new source/destination IP pair. This means that, for example, one FTP connection will use only one link, but new connection to a different server will use other link. This also means that routes to often-used sites will always be over the same provider. But on big backbones this should distribute traffic fine. Also this has another good feature - single connection packets do not get reordered and therefore do not kill TCP performance.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
tully
MikroTik Support
MikroTik Support
Posts: 505
Joined: Fri May 28, 2004 11:07 am

Wed Jul 21, 2004 10:18 am

You can make a failover script for 2.8, I hope one of our specialist will reply with an example.

For v2.9, we will have an automatic checker and you can set it to work when adding the route.

John
 
User avatar
Eugene
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
Posts: 993
Joined: Mon May 31, 2004 5:06 pm
Location: Cranfield, UK

Wed Jul 21, 2004 1:58 pm

Failover with Equal cost multipath:
/ip route add gateway=1.1.1.1,2.2.2.1
/system script set foo source={
  :local R1
  :local R2
  :if ([/tool netwatch get R1 status]=up) do={:set R1 1.1.1.1}
  :if ([/tool netwatch get R2 status]=up) do={:set R2 2.2.2.1}
   /ip route set [/ip route find dst-address=0.0.0.0/0] \
  gateway=($R1 . , . $R2)
  }
/tool netwatch add comment=R1 host=1.1.1.1 interval=5s up-script=foo \
  down-script=foo
/tool netwatch add comment=R2 host=2.2.2.1 interval=5s up-script=foo \
  down-script=foo
We can also expand this script to three or even more gateways. For example, if we have a third gateway of 3.3.3.1, the script will look like the following:
/system script set foo source={
  :local R1
  :local R2
  :local R3
  :if ([/tool netwatch get R1 status]=up) do={:set R1 1.1.1.1}
  :if ([/tool netwatch get R2 status]=up) do={:set R2 2.2.2.1}
  :if ([/tool netwatch get R3 status]=up) do={:set R3 3.3.3.1}
   /ip route set [/ip route find dst-address=0.0.0.0/0] \
  gateway=($R1 . , . $R2 . , . $R3)
  }
/tool netwatch add comment=R1 host=1.1.1.1 interval=5s up-script=foo \
  down-script=foo
/tool netwatch add comment=R2 host=2.2.2.1 interval=5s up-script=foo \
  down-script=foo
/tool netwatch add comment=R3 host=3.3.3.1 interval=5s up-script=foo \
  down-script=foo
Eugene
 
jober
Long time Member
Long time Member
Topic Author
Posts: 692
Joined: Fri May 28, 2004 12:16 pm
Location: Louisiana,USA

Great, BUT ?

Wed Jul 21, 2004 7:35 pm

Great to hear that the fallover wont be a problem but is this solution just load balancing or is it bonding the lines into one big pipe so that one ftp transfer will download or upload at the combined speed of all the lines.
The way it's setup now with the ML-IP software each packet is fragminted over all four lines and then put back together a the colo before going out to the internet. And traffic going to the remote location is fragminted and sent to the adsl lines and recombined so that the bonding works if traffic is coming or going.
 
User avatar
Eugene
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
Posts: 993
Joined: Mon May 31, 2004 5:06 pm
Location: Cranfield, UK

Thu Jul 22, 2004 12:43 pm

Present solution provides load balancing only.
 
jober
Long time Member
Long time Member
Topic Author
Posts: 692
Joined: Fri May 28, 2004 12:16 pm
Location: Louisiana,USA

Nooooooooo!

Thu Jul 22, 2004 8:56 pm

poo
Last edited by jober on Thu Jul 22, 2004 9:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
jober
Long time Member
Long time Member
Topic Author
Posts: 692
Joined: Fri May 28, 2004 12:16 pm
Location: Louisiana,USA

Sorry

Thu Jul 22, 2004 9:01 pm

Sorry,
No food, no sleep and to much sex will mess with the head.
 
markon
newbie
Posts: 47
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 7:26 am
Location: Lomita, California, USA
Contact:

MULTI LINK

Tue Aug 03, 2004 7:31 am

I think what is need here is an implimentation of the Multilink Protocol (used by cisco) (sorry of using a 5 letter word). John, as one of your OEM's I will forward the MLIP Linux Code and lastest CVS up to Lathia on Wen. When I return from Sacremento.

I ask about it a little while ago and then did the research.


Mark Esser
Vice President California Internet Service Provider Assoc.
http://www.cispa.org
 
tully
MikroTik Support
MikroTik Support
Posts: 505
Joined: Fri May 28, 2004 11:07 am

Tue Aug 03, 2004 10:12 am

Thanks, we will research it after you send it to us.

John
 
Andor

¿Equal? Multicost Path

Tue Aug 31, 2004 1:20 am

That's for Equal Multicost, but, if i would like to give different "costs" or "preferences" to each link?

:D

Thanks
 
tully
MikroTik Support
MikroTik Support
Posts: 505
Joined: Fri May 28, 2004 11:07 am

Tue Aug 31, 2004 9:43 am

The next v2.9 beta will have CEF, bonding and so on -- maybe the current one online has it, I have to check. I will try to get the manual pages organized so you can test it.

John
 
mp3turbo2
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 196
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 9:15 am

Tue Aug 31, 2004 1:03 pm

hello john,

what would be definitely excellent is bonding two (or even more) wireless physical links. Something like you have right now : dual nstreme, but do NOT separate upload / download channels, instead create one virtual with bonded capacity and share that capacity according to immediate need. Example :

let's say radios are capable to transfer 3MB/s one direction in the air (we don't take interference, distance, power, antennas, and everything else into account here - simply radios can transfer 3MB/s from one point to the other one, that's it). Right now we can have dual-nstreme setup, which should be able to transfer 3MB/s DOWN and concurrently 3MB/s UP. It would be definitely wonderfull to have possibility to transfer 6MB/s DOWN and almost nothing up, or let's say 4MB/s down and 2MB/s up, or 5MB/s down and 1MB/s up etc, etc. Simply those 6MB/s will be divided either:

a) according to strict setting - customer can choose to have 4MB/s down max, 2MB/s up max with hard limit (something like intentional shaping)

b) according to immediate need and load - upload is usually much smaller than download channel, so download will get more bandwidth from all channels etc.



I understand what I'm asking for is too complicated, there are interference issues on radio links, different for different frequencies etc. I would just welcome the possibility to have this - and of course, it will be up to the customer how to REALIZE what this possiblity brings. If the customer is in environment where this couldn't be done (too much providers in the air), then it couldn't be done. If he is in valley between hills, then it will be possible :)

Heya, this would definitely be THE KILLER. Do you know why? Simple : there is no competitor on the market with such feature and we all know that our radio links could :) twice throughput. You will see your sales triple, at least - this would be unique feature similar to karlnet proprietary wireless protocol.


Please, inform us, whether you have

a) free resources - programmers, time, priorities, money
b) willingness to do this - it could be relatively easy, just develop and strengthen your dual-nstreme idea

just say little: yes, we will consider this ; no there is no possibility ; yes, it is in the works and will be available next week :) or so.

bye, mp3turbo.
 
jober
Long time Member
Long time Member
Topic Author
Posts: 692
Joined: Fri May 28, 2004 12:16 pm
Location: Louisiana,USA

HA!

Wed Sep 01, 2004 9:17 am

FOUND IT!!!! I found a new way to bond the ADSL! Well not that new but I can do it now. The first test we did with two ADSL lines bonded the uploads and downloads. So it looks like I have a winner! In the morn I'm going to test it at a location that the ML-IP product did not work at and if it works I will start using this at the towers for bandwidth///3.840up by 30.0down\\\ at a cost of $700.00 a month. Kicks the crap out of a T1 line. :D
 
Bill
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Posts: 70
Joined: Fri May 28, 2004 4:24 pm
Location: Nevada

Re: HA!

Wed Sep 01, 2004 10:14 am

FOUND IT!!!! I found a new way to bond the ADSL! Well not that new but I can do it now. The first test we did with two ADSL lines bonded the uploads and downloads. So it looks like I have a winner! In the morn I'm going to test it at a location that the ML-IP product did not work at and if it works I will start using this at the towers for bandwidth///3.840up by 30.0down\\\ at a cost of $700.00 a month. Kicks the crap out of a T1 line. :D
So, what exactly was your solution? I'm interested in giving this a try with my two connections.
 
jober
Long time Member
Long time Member
Topic Author
Posts: 692
Joined: Fri May 28, 2004 12:16 pm
Location: Louisiana,USA

Works for me BUT!

Fri Sep 03, 2004 2:59 am

Sorry Bill I can’t say because it’s an ANCHENT CHINES SECRET. LOL!!
No it’s not, but the only thing is you need a Cisco router or a FreeBSD server at the other side. Like my setup//// PC—Switch1—FreeBSD—4_ADSL_Modems—Copper_POTs_Lines—DSLAM—PtP_ATM_Lines—Router1—Switch2—FreeBSD—Switch2—Router1—Internet_OC3_Lines\\\
You can also connect two locations together like a PtP connection.
It’s good old MLPPP!
Friday we will test another solution that bonds tunnels. It wont have the over head that is associated with MLPPP so we will have all the raw speed of the lines.
Also the MLPPP has a problem, if the first line to connect in the bundle drops the whole thing goes down for 5 to 90 seconds and that’s not a good thing.
Over the next 6 months we will be working to setup six new locations around the US to service people that need this bonding done on the other side of the link.
 
Bill
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Posts: 70
Joined: Fri May 28, 2004 4:24 pm
Location: Nevada

Fri Sep 03, 2004 7:51 am

Thanks. My situation's a little different, so I'm not sure if that will work. I guess I'll have to think a little more, or wait for 2.9 to be released. :)
 
jober
Long time Member
Long time Member
Topic Author
Posts: 692
Joined: Fri May 28, 2004 12:16 pm
Location: Louisiana,USA

Thinking hard and reaching far!

Sat Sep 04, 2004 2:34 am

The next v2.9 beta will have CEF, bonding and so on -- maybe the current one online has it, I have to check. I will try to get the manual pages organized so you can test it.

John
Tully
Would it be possiable to bridge 4 ethernet cards and then setup 4 EOIP tunnels. Then use per packet round robin to load balance. You would then have another mikrotik at the other end doing the same thing so that all the data would flow over all 4 lines up and down. And you would need a script to monitor the tunnels so that if 1 drops it would know not to send data over it. ???????? But if it's in the bridge group it will automaticly drop so the script may only need the look for the line to come back up and then send the other mikrotik and it's self a command to add the ethernet card back to the bridge group. :idea: :D
 
tully
MikroTik Support
MikroTik Support
Posts: 505
Joined: Fri May 28, 2004 11:07 am

Sat Sep 04, 2004 9:41 am

You should test this with v2.9

John
 
jober
Long time Member
Long time Member
Topic Author
Posts: 692
Joined: Fri May 28, 2004 12:16 pm
Location: Louisiana,USA

Re: MULTI LINK

Tue Sep 21, 2004 9:27 pm

I think what is need here is an implimentation of the Multilink Protocol (used by cisco) (sorry of using a 5 letter word). John, as one of your OEM's I will forward the MLIP Linux Code and lastest CVS up to Lathia on Wen. When I return from Sacremento.

I ask about it a little while ago and then did the research.


Mark Esser
Vice President California Internet Service Provider Assoc.
http://www.cispa.org
Hi Mark,

I was wondering if you had a chance to send that code and if anyone has done a thing with it.
I you have a minute or more to share,please give me a call so I can tell you what we have had success with and what we have not.
We have three people working on this, But it would be nice to have some one outside the box looking at it.

James Ober
504-234-2748
james@skycom1.com

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], MSN [Bot] and 50 guests