:Yup should be.....
Basically consists of creating
a. table
b. additional route
c. routing rule
See
Para J. -
viewtopic.php?t=182373
@anav's "Plan J" instruction are pretty good.
Couple side notes on "J"
- Likely the destination address in the /ip/route lines should use your 8.8.8.8 and 1.1.1.1 "routes", not the interface name WAN1 and WAN2 – this because you're using recursive routing WITH policy routing. Otherwise directed traffic would not be protected in case the interface is up with no internet (which is what recursive routing gets you).
- If you want the "policy directed traffic" (e.g. the IP or subnet your picking to send to a specific LAN) to be able to also use the LAN, not just only going to internet, you can a "safety rule" first in /routing rule that filters on destination address of your LANs (192.168.88.0/24) that explicitly go does "lookup" in "main" – since "first rule wins", this can go first. What this does is say if it going to a local address, bypass the policy routing rules for WANs. That's so they don't get forced out the WAN address by the policy rule since the new routing table only have 0.0.0.0/0 to a WAN, that includes local address too. If you want the "directed traffic" in a rule only go out a WAN, then you want that BEFORE this safetly rule, as that cause it lose LAN/VLAN access since 0.0.0.0/0 matches, well, all traffic including local addresses.
- If you need to do direct traffic out a specific WAN by port/protocol/etc, not IP address, you'd need to use the "Mangle" approach, as that has more advanced filters (and also more complex mechanics to setup). But for this host goes WAN1, that host goes out WAN2, the policy routing is a more "visible" way to do this (e.g. firewall rules aren't always easy to read/see the routing rules defined within the mange section). Both approach do the same thing at the end, traffic goes out a selected WAN.