/ip firewall mangle
add chain=prerouting connection-state=new src-address-list=ISP2 action=mark-connection new-connection-mark=ISP2conn passthrough=yes
add chain=prerouting in-interface=<LAN> connection-mark=ISP2conn action=mark-routing new-routing-mark=To-ISP2
Because if we had a way to properly combine the 2 ISPs... There would be no need to "either or" it.What does MPTCP solve regarding what the user wants to solve in this topic? (giving an option to clients to choose the ISP they go out with) ?
A long time ago... I made 2 SSIDs. Each SSID had the name of the ISP. You had to connect to one or the other.or more accurately, the OP/admin wants to be able to let the users choose which internet connection, door number 1 or door number 2, if it makes no sense to you, then we are in the same boat and hence, there are hidden requirements not being communicated, or the OP doesnt understand networking.
you khnow clients wants this becaues we try pcc and net watch and none of them doesnt work well an we live in iran so we have internet issues alot...thats why clients exactly undrestand the speed or stability of net so the manager insist on letting them to choose which net...What I am saying, is that for practical reasons, it becomes very difficult to let clients choose which internet they are going out of.
I dont know any way of doing that, but perhaps Sob and others could figure out a way.
The router in general is not setup that way. The admin directs a SET of users or an individual user or anything in between out either one WAN or another.
Or the admin can ensure that the users have roughly equal access to both WAN connections. I have not seen any configuration that allows the user to choose.
As I stated, why would they want to have to make a choice (they just want internet connection) and two what would they base their decisions on.
You still havent explained why the clients want a choice?? You are still hiding the requirements.
Provide a network diagram so we can see what is going on and provide full config as there are too many questions unanswered.
For instance are the wifi clients getting wifi from an access point connected to an ethernet port on the router or is the router providing both wired and wireless clients.
When you say you have two sets of clients, why not put them on different subnets, LAN (wired clients) on subnet A, or VLAN10 and wifi clients on subnet B or vlan 20 ......
yes i think somehow i did this too..No, it won't affect all clients, only all packets from one client. The two rules your originally posted:
#1 - watches for ping to 2.2.2.2 and adds client's address to address list
#2 - marks routing for packets from clients listed in address list
So when some client pings 2.2.2.2, its address (whatever it has in LAN, e.g. 192.168.88.20) will be added to list and all further packets from this address will be routed to internet using ISP2 for next five seconds (= the address list timeout). If that's the goal, it will work.
But if there's some already established connection from this client to remote server (e.g. VPN) using ISP1, its packets will also be routed to ISP2 and connection will break. And same problem will be if you switch to ISP2 and establish such connection that should stay open. Once the address times out and gets removed from list, all packets will go to ISP1 again and this connection will break too.
But if you mark new connections, they will stick to ISP that was active when they were established.
I was running it on a Ubuntu box with several network interfaces.That seems to be app based on devices not router based??
Its up and running now. Have it running on the small forum computer sitting infront of my hAP AC2.That seems to be app based on devices not router based??
interesting......... but im windows guy LOL.ANAV
Its up and running now. Have it running on the small forum computer sitting infront of my hAP AC2.That seems to be app based on devices not router based??
The small computer is running Ubuntu and Speedify.