Community discussions

 
darencrew
just joined
Topic Author
Posts: 24
Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2006 6:12 pm

Bonding interfaces / Dynamic Eoip

Sat Aug 14, 2010 3:06 am

Hello,

I try to bond interfaces to aggregate traffic, so the only interfaces supported are:

OVPN which are totally buggy when used in bonding
or EOIP which works great

The problem is Eoip is totally static, so you have to set, on both sides, the right "ID/Peer address" combination to make it works, that's not really scalable.

If i'm not wrong, Eoip is GRE based, and PPTP is able to be bridged to an interface (for BCP for example), so which do PPTP isn't compatible with bonding?

I succeed, some times, in making OVPN bonding work, but only in IP mode, not in ethernet mode; if bonding needs ethernet like interface, why does it don't accept OVPN in ethernet mode, and worse, why do it accepts ip mode?


In fact, i would like to be able to use bonding with interface which only requires login/pwd and peer address.

Maybe should i add a feature request to get an authenticated eoip version ;)

Regards

Dom
 
FIPTech
Member
Member
Posts: 469
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 1:53 am

Re: Bonding interfaces / Dynamic Eoip

Sat Aug 14, 2010 2:23 pm

If you need authentication then Multilink PPP is the way to go.

Unfortunately Mikrotik does not support MLPPP server mode.

I'm using Bonding with EoIP with some success, but this solution needs ARP monitoring because EoIP interface is always UP regardless the real state. This consume bandwith all the time on the link.

Another problem with EoIP is that you are lowering the MTU. Using a PPP link, you can use the MRRU setting to rise the MTU to 1500.
This is a nice solution, certainly better than using the proprietary mikrotik packing, or changing the MSS size in a mangle rule.

I think that MLPPP is the way to go.

There is a FreeBSP daeamon supporting this : http://mpd.sourceforge.net/

This has been ported to linux.

There is as well commercial code for MLPPP server :

http://www.telesoft-intl.com/sourcecode_ML-PPP.html
Last edited by FIPTech on Sat Aug 14, 2010 2:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
darencrew
just joined
Topic Author
Posts: 24
Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2006 6:12 pm

Re: Bonding interfaces / Dynamic Eoip

Sat Aug 14, 2010 2:36 pm

Hello,

Thank you for your reply.

I already found mpd but i'm unable to find its linux ports, do you have any address where to find it?

I'm very familiar with eoip, so despite it works well, you should also think that an authenticated eoip (like ppp) would be better, don't you?

Regards

Dom
 
FIPTech
Member
Member
Posts: 469
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 1:53 am

Re: Bonding interfaces / Dynamic Eoip

Sat Aug 14, 2010 2:44 pm

Why reinvente the wheel ? ppp is here to transport IP, Ethernet, IPv6 or MPLS.

Reraed my previous messages, i've added some informations.

I don't have a link for the linux port of MPD. I've read on google that it has been ported.
 
darencrew
just joined
Topic Author
Posts: 24
Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2006 6:12 pm

Re: Bonding interfaces / Dynamic Eoip

Sat Aug 14, 2010 2:59 pm

I don't want to reinvent the wheel, but as you say, ppp is made to transport ethernet (and others) so as eoip...

Why is it possible to add a ppp to a bridge (ethernet) and not to a bonding (ethernet too)...

Moreover, PPTP = GRE + TCP for initialization, EOIP = GRE

So, maybe EOIP should'nt be changed, but PPTP should be supported by bonding...


You deal with EOIP lowering MTU, but i didn't notice such problems, on the contrary, i often use it because i get full sized mtu through it.

For MPD portage, i searched a lot on google and didn't find it, so i'll try it directly on FreeBSD.
 
FIPTech
Member
Member
Posts: 469
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 1:53 am

Re: Bonding interfaces / Dynamic Eoip

Sat Aug 14, 2010 4:09 pm

"So, maybe EOIP should'nt be changed, but PPTP should be supported by bonding..."

Why not, but MLPPP would be more appropriate and more reliable.

Bonding has been designed primarily to connect Linux machines to switches or other Linux Machines on the LAN. It is not optimized for WAN connections.The first product to easily support bonding / openvpn was Zeroshell. There are lots of users on the Zeroshell forum having problems with this.

Most bonding modes (there are 7 modes if i remember well) seems to not work optimaly on EoIP WAN links. Only active backup is fully working. Users are reporting bandwith problems with other modes (specially with TCP) as soon as the bandwith on each link is different, because packets do not arrive in the right order. Only 802.3ad mode guarantee that packects arrive in order, but each channel need to have exactly the same bandwith. So it is not usable on most WAN links.

MLPPP can be used not only with pppoe, but PPTP or L2TP as well.

Last, i've found that bonding EoIP in active backup mode is only interesting if you need a very fast commutation time between active and backup link. But to get this fast commutation time, about 50 ms like for SDH links, you need something like a 20 ms arp frequency. This is quite a high bandwith overhead for slow links.

Nevertheless, i'm using this to secure Internet links through different providers when commutation time is critical and we can't change seen gateway. (linux NAT and connection traking does not like changing gateways, generaly it does break VoIP trafic until you reset the connection tracking table regardless the router you are using).

For looser commutation time requirements, we can use two PPTP tunnels, with static routes to them (using server PPTP interfaces). We'll give a higher metric for the backup link.
For bridging, RSTP or Mesh interfaces should be usable. I didn't tried this, but i tried PPTP alone with BCP bridging, seems to work flowlessly, and we can rise the MTU to 1500, thanks to the MRRU setting, (using MLPPP single link internaly) even if the pptp links are setup on a PPPoE xDSL link.

I hope to see MLPPP server on Mikrotik soon. Then we'll begin to have a really serious small provider router, and we'll be able to start comparing with Cisco, Juniper or Nortel entry offers.

Actually and unfortunately, there is still a big difference between big names and alternatives like Avaya or Mikrotik. Except the hardware power higher on big names box, PDH / SDH / ATM full support, and premium paid support, low price alternative products do not support complex or recent functions like MLPPP or Provider Backbone Bridge.

There is no reasons products like Mikrotik do not take more Cisco market parts. With the arrival of Intel / Broadcom multiqueue Network cards and multi core PC systems, Linux routing systems will become more and more competitive and attractive compared to Asic hardware. But to achieve this they must make a real developpement effort to support advanced functions needed by providers.

Provider Backbone Bridge is implemented since about two years by Cisco/ Juniper / Nortel. We don't see it in the Linux world. This is the problem. When you are a provider, you can't wait years to have the technology of your competitors. That's why there is still a market for the leaders, even if Linux boxes are ten times lower cost.
 
darencrew
just joined
Topic Author
Posts: 24
Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2006 6:12 pm

Re: Bonding interfaces / Dynamic Eoip

Fri Aug 20, 2010 4:14 pm

Hello,

I just try MPD, which seems to work but the problem is located on RouterOS.

In fact Mikrotik tell RouterOs is MLPPP capable, and so you have to use the same server or specify interfaces to use for pppoe, but for PPTP, you can't have several connections to same ip through different interface; the only way is to use different server adresses with associated routes.

On linux PPPD, the multilink relies on a discriminator that might be "local, IP, MAC, magic, or phone", but Mikrotik seems to only use server ip, which is not enough to achieve multilink on PPTP.

Why not using

username/password : if username and password are the same already used by interface

or

like pppoe, beeing able to specify several servers on an interface (connect to addresses)


Maybe somebody have another idea....

Please let me know...
 
FIPTech
Member
Member
Posts: 469
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 1:53 am

Re: Bonding interfaces / Dynamic Eoip

Fri Aug 20, 2010 8:30 pm

Are you sure that Router OS is MLPPP server capable ?

According to the documentation it is only capable of client MLPPP operation.

Next i think that MLPPP client is permitted only for PPPoE, not L2TP or PPTP.
 
darencrew
just joined
Topic Author
Posts: 24
Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2006 6:12 pm

Re: Bonding interfaces / Dynamic Eoip

Sat Aug 21, 2010 11:56 am

I Never told routeros was mlppp server capable because it is not but it is theorically MLPPP clent capable but there is not mention how to achieve L2TP or PPTP multilink; that should be possible...at least for PPTP which relies on PPP
 
FIPTech
Member
Member
Posts: 469
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 1:53 am

Re: Bonding interfaces / Dynamic Eoip

Sat Aug 21, 2010 12:51 pm

all PPP based protocols can use MLPPP.

L2TP is PPP based.


See an example here :

http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/j ... ample.html
 
darencrew
just joined
Topic Author
Posts: 24
Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2006 6:12 pm

Re: Bonding interfaces / Dynamic Eoip

Mon Aug 23, 2010 10:37 am

Of course, but how to achieve it with RouterOS? That's the question....
 
FIPTech
Member
Member
Posts: 469
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 1:53 am

Re: Bonding interfaces / Dynamic Eoip

Tue Aug 24, 2010 3:04 am

Wait for MLPPP server ...

But there are chances that router software editors concentrate their energy now on Provider Backbone Bridge (802.1ah) and GMPLS protocols for the comming monthes and years.

The goal is to suppress the ATM and Sonet/SDH layer, transporting IP directly with GMPLS over DWDM links where MPLS was only able to transport IP over the Sonet/SDH layer.

This will allow to redesign interconnection networks, keeping a centralized management, but allowing a mesh physical structure with rapid trafic reconfiguration possibilities instead of heavy and costly SDH rings setup + ATM management.

GMPLS and PBB is an opportunity for Ethernet hardware manufacturers not having ATM and PDH / SDH compatible products to enter the provider market and most are working on its support as PPP and ATM will progressively become something of the past with FTTH deployment.
 
darencrew
just joined
Topic Author
Posts: 24
Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2006 6:12 pm

Re: Bonding interfaces / Dynamic Eoip

Tue Aug 24, 2010 10:56 am

Thank you for your informations, but i don't have to wait for MLPPP server because i'll use MPD, and I can't wait years to get GMPLS...

I would like to know how to get MLPPP client work on RouterOS, in PPTP or L2TP (PPPoE is trivial).

Is there a way or will there be a way to do so?

Thanks
 
FIPTech
Member
Member
Posts: 469
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 1:53 am

Re: Bonding interfaces / Dynamic Eoip

Tue Aug 24, 2010 11:33 am

Only Mikrotik can answer if their PPP package is able to support this. If it can't natively, i doubt they will change it for a new one as it is certainly a lot of work and eventually some money to buy a commercial licence for redistribution.



You should send them a mail directly.
 
User avatar
mrz
MikroTik Support
MikroTik Support
Posts: 5909
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 12:45 pm
Location: Latvia
Contact:

Re: Bonding interfaces / Dynamic Eoip

Tue Aug 24, 2010 12:46 pm

MLPPP works only with pppoe clients.
 
darencrew
just joined
Topic Author
Posts: 24
Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2006 6:12 pm

Re: Bonding interfaces / Dynamic Eoip

Tue Aug 24, 2010 12:59 pm

Thank you i just got the answer from you support...

That's a pity, anyway...
 
gled
just joined
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:51 pm

Re: Bonding interfaces / Dynamic Eoip

Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:53 pm

Hi,

Would it be hard to include support for pptp or l2tp ?

Maybe if we, users, ask nicely Mikrotik guys will include support of this killer feature to their awesome routers :)

It's quite a show stopper for me not being able to use it for something other than pppoe for mlppp...

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 88 guests