ER605 (v2) Policy Routing is not working
I have a dual WAN setup with Load Balancing as failover.
WAN | Dynamic IP | Link Up | 192.168.70.176 | 255.255.255.0 | 192.168.70.1 | 192.168.70.1 | |
WAN/LAN1 | Dynamic IP | Link Up | 192.168.0.164 | 255.255.255.0 | 192.168.0.1 | 192.168.0.1 |
Is it normal that WAN/LAN1 shows Offline? Note that I tested it directly and internet works on WAN/LAN1.
So, all devices will use that main load balancer. However I want a group of devices of certain ip range to use WAN2 as the default, and failover to WAN1.
So I created the ip range group:
And created the Policy routing for that group:
That's all my setup.
Now I tested with a device inside that range:
>ipconfig
Ethernet adapter Ethernet 5:
IPv4 Address. . . . . . . . . . . : 192.168.20.15
>tracert 1.1.1.1
Tracing route to one.one.one.one [1.1.1.1]
1 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms 192.168.20.1
2 4 ms 5 ms 4 ms 192.168.70.1
It's supposed to go through 192.168.0.1 NOT 192.168.70.1
What is the issue? Am I doing anything wrong?
- Copy Link
- Subscribe
- Bookmark
- Report Inappropriate Content
Hi @iFarid
Thanks for posting in our business forum.
iFarid wrote
I have a dual WAN setup with Load Balancing as failover.
WAN Dynamic IP Link Up 192.168.70.176 255.255.255.0 192.168.70.1 192.168.70.1 WAN/LAN1 Dynamic IP Link Up 192.168.0.164 255.255.255.0 192.168.0.1 192.168.0.1
Is it normal that WAN/LAN1 shows Offline? Note that I tested it directly and internet works on WAN/LAN1.
So, all devices will use that main load balancer. However I want a group of devices of certain ip range to use WAN2 as the default, and failover to WAN1.
So I created the ip range group:
Refer to the QA about this Offline you are talking about.
This will resolve your puzzle.
iFarid wrote
That's all my setup.
Now I tested with a device inside that range:
>ipconfig
Ethernet adapter Ethernet 5:
IPv4 Address. . . . . . . . . . . : 192.168.20.15
>tracert 1.1.1.1
Tracing route to one.one.one.one [1.1.1.1]
1 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms 192.168.20.1
2 4 ms 5 ms 4 ms 192.168.70.1
It's supposed to go through 192.168.0.1 NOT 192.168.70.1
What is the issue? Am I doing anything wrong?
Also, in that article, it explains the status of the backup WAN.
If it is not active, it will not work. So that's why your Policy Routing is not effective. It conflicts.
You don't have to use the link backup in this situation. So, without the link backup, set up the policy routing you want like the OP.
Or you use two policy routing and priority mode to achieve something similar to the link backup.
- Copy Link
- Report Inappropriate Content
@Clive_A Thanks for your reply.
I have read that article previously but it didn't state clearly that this is normal and it's the excepted behavior. It says "your backup WAN will remain inactive so it shows as "Offline" in the status." The way how it's implemneted, makes you think your line is down and there is no way to know if your backup line is really ok or not.
Clive_A wrote
You don't have to use the link backup in this situation. So, without the link backup, set up the policy routing you want like the OP.
Or you use two policy routing and priority mode to achieve something similar to the link backup.
Could you please clarify if I need to setup one or two routing policies, and what is the difference?
After disabling "Link Backup" which WAN will be the primary one?
Also "Enable Load Balancing" should be kept enabled or disabled?
Kindly explain, your response is highly appreciated.
- Copy Link
- Report Inappropriate Content
Hi @iFarid
Thanks for posting in our business forum.
iFarid wrote
@Clive_A Thanks for your reply.
I have read that article previously but it didn't state clearly that this is normal and it's the excepted behavior. It says "your backup WAN will remain inactive so it shows as "Offline" in the status." The way how it's implemneted, makes you think your line is down and there is no way to know if your backup line is really ok or not.
Clive_A wrote
You don't have to use the link backup in this situation. So, without the link backup, set up the policy routing you want like the OP.
Or you use two policy routing and priority mode to achieve something similar to the link backup.
Could you please clarify if I need to setup one or two routing policies, and what is the difference?
After disabling "Link Backup" which WAN will be the primary one?
Also "Enable Load Balancing" should be kept enabled or disabled?
Kindly explain, your response is highly appreciated.
There is no way to know if your backup WAN is up or down. The online detection is only detecting
What's the chance to have both links down?
I will direct you to the way of thinking about this. Instead of asking for a step by step configuration.
If you use load balancing and one policy routing, it achieves what you want in the OP. Your goal.
If you want to have the failover-like stuff, you need two policy routing. One is like the OP, it'll always go through the WAN2. Another one will be priority mode. Set up the WAN1 as the Internet. And enable priority mode and the mode explains it. It fails over to the other WAN when the primary is down.
- Copy Link
- Report Inappropriate Content
@Clive_A
Thanks for the reply.
Sorry I'm unable to fully understand what you meant. Kindly elaborate.
Just to clarify again here is what I would like to do:
Group 1 Devices/All Devices: Use WAN1 as primary and failover to WAN2
Group 2 Devices/Exception Devices: Use WAN2 as primary and failover to WAN1
Also kindly clarify those questions:
After disabling "Link Backup" which WAN will be the primary one?
Also "Enable Load Balancing" should be kept enabled or disabled?
- Copy Link
- Report Inappropriate Content
Any updates please?
Also Any idea why I get "Request timed out" below after I disabled the Link Backup?
>tracert -d -h 2 8.8.8.8
Tracing route to 8.8.8.8 over a maximum of 2 hops
1 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms 192.168.20.1
2 * * * Request timed out.
>tracert -d -h 2 1.1.1.1
Tracing route to 1.1.1.1 over a maximum of 2 hops
1 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms 192.168.20.1
2 * * * Request timed out.
- Copy Link
- Report Inappropriate Content
Information
Helpful: 0
Views: 1207
Replies: 5
Voters 0
No one has voted for it yet.