Setting up second wan connection.

It's easier than you expect:

1. Connect to an unused NIC.
2. Configure an interface with a default gateway on the NIC.
3. Make a Multipath rule like 'Any -> Any -> Any : bind to original interface'.

Cheers - Bob

Hi Bib,

Found this answer and am working on it now.  Before I make a mess of things please could you clarify what you mean by "unused NIC"

Could mean several things to me.

Mis-typed, that was Bob.  Sorry.

"Unused" was indeed the wrong adjective, Alastair.  I meant "connect the ISP's device to an available NIC."  When you do that and the Interface has a default gateway, WebAdmin automatically activates Uplink Balancing.  Starting a few years ago, WebAdmin also automatically modifies existing masquerading rules  from '--> External' to '--> Uplink Interfaces'.

I prefer using Multipath rules to weighting because the rules are instantly visible.

Cheers - Bob
PS "Bib" reminded me of my girlfriend when I was 17.  When I gave her a birthday card, I realized when I got to her home that I'd spelled her name with nn instead of one n, so I crossed out the second one before ringing her doorbell.  She was gracious at the time, but had a surprise for me when my birthday came around after I'd started going steady with another girl.  She spelled my name "Boob" on the birthday card and crossed out the second o.  That was sooo cool!

Hi Bob,

Thanks for the smiles.  What I am not sure about is the term NIC.  I assume you mean one of the ports on the UTM.  Is that correct?  My problem is that present all UTM ports are occupied.  I shall have to see what I can change to free up a port. 

NIC = Network Interface Card = Ethernet port.

All ports are occupied before you can connect the second WAN connection?

Cheers - Bob

Hi Bob, sorry to be thick but my problem is not what we understand by NIC but that none are local to my secondary router.  I should explain my UTM is in a rack with a managed switch and patch panel for company.  All 5 available ports on the UTM are occupied by patch connections either to the adjacent managed switch or other managed switches, more remote and using trunk connections and vlans.  All the servers and workstations and thus NICs are remote. 

From your initial reply I thought you were referring to one of the interface ports in the UTM.  Clearly not.   All the machines are on static IPs on their respective subnets but I shall have to make some changes to get a copper connection from the secondary router to a NIC.  Would it not be simpler to plug into the adjacent switch which has all he subnets available on the switch and I believe has a spare interface.  If I do this, does it matter which subnet I use?  All the subnets connect through to the UTM so I assume the UTM will sort out the routing.  

I cannot recall the details of my secondary internet connection but I believe I have a fixed IP connection from my ISP to the router and there is also a basic firewall device which addresses DHCP.  I believe the NAT is done by the router but will check. The basic firewall may cause problems so I shall need to check with my ISP if I can bypass the firewall and go straight to the router.

I suspect I am making too hard work of this but this is a live business system and I cannot afford to have things going wrong.      

Does the following give you an idea, Alastair?  If the ISP's connection terminates in a switch that is already connected to the UTM, have it route the traffic to a VLAN and define a VLAN interface on the UTM NIC that's connected.

Cheers - Bob

OK that sounds like a plan and sorry I have been so difficult. 

The way I have my switches configured, all the subnets and dhcp are defined on the UTM and connect to access points on the switches.  I do not bring the vlan tagged traffic into the UTM as all tags are stripped at the access point from the switch as a preference till now. 

I can create a Vlan on the switch and access port for it but this is where my understanding runs out.  If I use an existing vlan, for example vlan 500, the access point on the switch connecting to UTM connection to port 5 serves subnet with a particular IP range from dhcp on UTM.  Do I need to configure the secondary router for this particular subnet or just leave it floating? 

I can't even guess, so that's a question for the people that sold you the switch.

Cheers - Bob

Hi Bob and many thanks for your patience. 

I now have a dedicated Vlan with its own subnet and DNS and DHCP enabled on the UTM.  With a rule set allowing WAN connection and through trunk connection and a vlan access port on the switch I can see the world!  This checked out with a dhcp connection from my laptop and I can access the WAN from it.  OK.

I have now plugged the router lan into the switch.  I know the router IP and it has DHCP enabled.  I am not aware of any firewall settings in the router. OK

What I still need a bit of help with now is the rules for enabling this connection on the UTM please.  Having set the NIC port as an  access port for the vlan my understanding is that the there is nothing more for me to do on the switch because all the rest is done on the UTM but as I type I have no idea if the connection is working or any traffic being shared.   

My problem is with the Multipath Rules and Uplink Balancing.

I tried to set up the multipath rules as any -> any -> any -> undefined.  I am OK with persistence by source/destination but I am stuck with undefined.  

I have set up the subnet for a new connection on the UTM which has dns and dhcp services but my other router also has it's own dhcp server and subnet for the ISP.  When I tried to make this work I had an unexpected prompt for a login from the UTM (I was already logged in) and my ISP email service was blocked.  I know I have made a mistake and sure enough on the UTM  dashboard the port was flagged with an error.  Further guidance would be appreciated please.

My problem is with the Multipath Rules and Uplink Balancing.

I tried to set up the multipath rules as any -> any -> any -> undefined.  I am OK with persistence by source/destination but I am stuck with undefined.  

I have set up the subnet for a new connection on the UTM which has dns and dhcp services but my other router also has it's own dhcp server and subnet for the ISP.  When I tried to make this work I had an unexpected prompt for a login from the UTM (I was already logged in) and my ISP email service was blocked.  I know I have made a mistake and sure enough on the UTM  dashboard the port was flagged with an error.  Further guidance would be appreciated please.

Hi  Bob,

So I have multipath rule set up now as any->any->any->Uplink interfaces and two interfaces set up on Uplink Balancing with the Active interfaces as External (WAN) and the interface I created using vlan.  My problem is that when I enable this configuration I get an error message on the new interface I get a prompt that a login is required but no clue which or where as when I select the UTM comes up with an error and to cap it all I have no internet or email.

I know I have been slow but hope you haven't given up on me as I am stuck. 

I am attaching screenshots of the settings I have set up for multipath rules and uplink balancing and the pop up messages I received when I tried to use browser and email after enabling these settings.

I have had to disable them to be able to send these screenshots.  I have zipped the screenshots and am trying to send them here as a compressed file hich I hope you will be able to open.  Please let me know if you need these shots in a different format.

Pictures.tar.gz

Hello,
are you using webfiltering? Do you have setup an outgoing interface there?

Hi Philipp,

Many thanks for your kind reply.  Many thanks for the use of English as my German is non existent but I do listen to a great deal of Bach.. 

It seems I do have some web filtering set up.  I am not aware of this but may have been set up by original supplier, long since departed.  Two networks are shown on the Allowed Networks tab.  Neither involving my planned uplink balancing. 

Should I just add the two interfaces or is there more configuration required.

Hello,

again: you do not have defined an outgoing interface there?

Hi Philipp,  Thanks for pointing this out to me but as I stated above I have no idea how this has been set up or when.  What is worse is that I have no idea if I need Web Filtering or on which interfaces.   What function do these serve?

Why for example are Admin and Internal allowed and how are they defined.  I shall now look further into the machine but if there are any guidance notes please advise.

Many thanks again,

Alastair.

Hi Philipp,

The Optional Interface you have highlighted is not visible on my device.

I turned the Web Filtering off and the Uplink balancing still does not work.

Is there a step by step guide on how to do this please?

Hi Alastair,

In Web Filtering you can configure different Profiles so that traffic for different groups or internal LANs can be handled differently.  In order for WebAdmin to show the 'Optional interface for outgoing traffic' as suggested by Philipp, you must run the following command as root at the command line:

     cc set http enable_out_interface 1

Cheers - Bob

Hi Bob, I am not having much success here.  The Web Filtering was a surprise as I had no idea it had been set.  I wonder if it came as a result of my setting something else.  

Can I leave Web Filtering off while I try and sort out my second WAN connection?

I tried this, as I said earlier, but even with Web Filtering turned off I still had no internet or email access as soon as I turned on the multipath rules and uplink balancing.  What next I ask?  

With regard to Philipp's advice and your related help I note that if I access the UTM as root it negates any support available from Sophos.  Do I really have to go in using SSH. Surely it shouldn't be necessary for what I am trying to achieve?

Yes, it's not advised for people to start mucking around with things at the command line unless it's something known to be acceptable.  Sophos UTM: How to change the outgoing interface for Web Filtering gives more instruction than I did, but it clearly indicates that the command I give above is acceptable.

How about a picture of your Multipath rules?

Cheers - Bob