Thread Info
  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 9 replies
  • Subscribers 5 subscribers
  • Views 21505 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Suggested
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

Forcing one host to use secondary WAN connection - cannot make it work for my life.

JohnSmith4

Hi All,

Hopefully someone could help :)

I have got second WAN connection, which normally sits as standby spare. But i decided to actually use it for some traffic. To test it first I decided to route through it my internet radio (standalone box). And whatever I do (I am on 9.353 home license) it just does not work. Is there known bug in this firmware I beg to ask?

If not than I tried all possible things I could think of / could find on forum. Typically I would set both WANs to active, set first to 100 and second to 0 to force all traffic on default through main WAN. Than I would create multipath rule to get traffic (device -> any -> WAN2) from radio push through WAN2. And it does not happen. WAN2 on dashboard stays 0 / 0 kbps and checking main connection i can see that shoutcast service continues on main WAN. I also set short persistence to see effect faster (1 minute) and also restarted device to force the rule. Nothing.

So i tried that rule on my PC (myPC -> any -> WAN2) and see exactly same behavior. I get main WAN IP address when checked in the browser. WAN2 stays with 0 traffic on it.

I also tried to masquerade (map) that device in question to WAN2 but no difference either. Is this actually needed by the way?

Just to clarify, if i set weights to 50/50 or 100/100 or anything similar than it seems to split the overall traffic between both WANs. But I cannot get just a device to exit through chosen one.

It worries me that when I want to get a server to be visible outside under specific IP (WAN2 IP) I will not be able to make it work?

Please kindly share you experience.

Thanks!



This thread was automatically locked due to age.
Parents
  • 0
    John,

    You're going to need to create a masq rule at the top of the priority list that says that host is specifically tied to WAN2. Once you do that you'll need to make sure your firewall rules are in place that allow traffic out of WAN2 and that you have the associated routing in place for a gateway out of WAN2. If you disable WAN1 (as a test) do you get traffic over WAN2?
Reply
  • 0
    John,

    You're going to need to create a masq rule at the top of the priority list that says that host is specifically tied to WAN2. Once you do that you'll need to make sure your firewall rules are in place that allow traffic out of WAN2 and that you have the associated routing in place for a gateway out of WAN2. If you disable WAN1 (as a test) do you get traffic over WAN2?
Children
  • 0 in reply to TerryHashley
    Terry,

    Thanks for your input. I believe I tried that (mapping that particular host to WAN2) but I surely can try again. So what you are saying I should have masqs like that:
    host -> any -> WAN2
    internal -> any -> Uplink Interfaces

    or I would be better to split second entry to:

    internal -> any -> WAN1
    internal -> any -> WAN2

    ?

    And yes, I can route common traffic through WAN2. If I disable WAN1 than all goes through WAN2. If in uplink balancing I set weight on WAN2 to anything more than 0 than also i get some traffic going through it. This is just forcing one host to use WAN2 where I seem to struggle.
  • 0 in reply to JohnSmith4
    I would say:
    host -> any -> WAN2
    internal -> any -> Uplink Interfaces

    That way it is a priority list based on your uplink balancing weight values.

    Then make sure you're full nat for internal connections from WAN2 to that host.

    I think that should take care of it since your uplink balancing weights are working otherwise meaning your firewall rules *should* be good.
Unfiltered HTML