867VAE dual WAN SDSL and ADSL failover

Hello,
I have the 867VAE router, and I'm looking for configuration example to implement the SDSL as the primary WAN and the ADSL for the backup.
Could you send me plz an example of configuration?
Cheer
BR
A.Aziz

Pleas see as bellow :
AIST#sh ip route 0.0.0.0
Routing entry for 0.0.0.0/0, supernet
Known via "static", distance 253, metric 0 (connected), candidate default path
Routing Descriptor Blocks:
* directly connected, via Dialer1
      Route metric is 0, traffic share count is 1
AIST#sh track 1
Track 1
IP SLA 1 reachability
Reachability is Down
    3 changes, last change 03:14:29
Latest operation return code: Timeout
Tracked by:
    STATIC-IP-ROUTING 0
BR

Similar Messages

VPN and a Dual Wan router confusion

I am running a Border Manager 3.9 server with a Dual Wan router supplying the 2 ISPs load balancing to a single NIC on the Border Manager Server. I want to try setting up a VPN.
Whats the easiest most pain free way of doing this?
Just wondering,
[email protected]

In article <[email protected]>, Rlmillies wrote:
> Whats the easiest most pain free way of doing this?
>
Hah! Well, inbound traffic in general can be problematical on a
dual-wan system.
Here you have two issues, if the router is like ones I've worked on.
First, load balancing. You can't (probably - this is based on my
experience) set up a static NAT of one of the public IP addresses to
the BM 'public' address and still load balance. My experience is that
as soon as you do that, it forces both inbound and outbound traffic
onto that particular WAN link, so it kills load balancing/failover.
Which means you need to do port forwarding on the router for all the
VPN ports. You will need TCP and UPD 353, and UPD 500 and 4500 inbound
(and replies outbound). If using a site-site VPN, you also need TCP
213 inbound.
You will have to configure the VPN address in BMgr to use one of the
WAN public IP's. The VPN will only work on that one WAN link.
Craig Johnson
Novell Support Connection SysOp
*** For a current patch list, tips, handy files and books on
BorderManager, go to http://www.craigjconsulting.com ***

Dual Wan and port routing

Hi,
I am setting up a configuration with SA520W and 2 Wan, in load balancing. But I face a problem that I could not understand.
Traffic is HTTP, SIP and 2 servers.
Servers are for a VPN tunnel and a mail server with ActiveSync
Both services absolutely need port 443 on the external IP, and that's one of the dual wan reason.
The 2 wan are running, load balancing mode is enable and NAt routing in firewall tab as follow :
443 Enabled     WAN     LAN     ALU_OpenVPN     ALLOW always     Any         192.168.0.150     WAN1     Always
443   Enabled     WAN     LAN     ActiveSync     ALLOW always     Any         192.168.0.254     WAN2     Always
If load balanced
Port 443 is NOT routed from wan1 to 192.168.0.150
Port 443 is routed from wan2 to 192.168.0.254
If only WAN 1
Port 443 is routed from wan1 to 192.168.0.150
If only WAN 2
Port 443 is routed from wan2 to 192.168.0.254
In fact I did other testing and no port routing with WAN1 when load balancing is enable, even on port that is not used at all on Wan2.
With a FTP filezilla server, it's OK if on wan2, and it stop before logging if on a wan1 (on laod balancing, ok on both case if only one wan)
Firmware : latest 2.1.18
Any Clue ??

Hello,
I confirm, there is a strange behaviour.
Simple test :
Dual Wan configured.
A FTP server on the LAN (192.168.0.254) port 21
Firewall , ipv4 config :
WAN   to   LAN     FTP     ALLOW always     Any         192.168.0.254     WAN1
WAN   to   LAN     FTP     ALLOW always     Any         192.168.0.254     WAN2
Then some testing using a FTP client outside the LAN, connection from Internet.
Then, changing ONLY the Wan Mode :
1/ Use only single WAN port : Dedicated WAN
==> FTP connect through WAN1
2/ Use only single WAN port : Optional WAN
==>FTP connect through WAN2
3/ Load Balancing
==>FTP connect through WAN1
==>FTP DO NOT connect through WAN1
Is that a bug or do I have some strange stuff somewhere ?
I will pick up another SA520W from stock, brand new, update the firmware, configure the 2 WAN (invering the 2 provider just in case) and do the same test.

Dual WAN and Log mail SMTP on RV082 ?

I use a RV082 with dual Wan and I cannot configure two SMTP.
Without authentication; a SMTP is specific of the provider.
When WAN1 comes down, SMTP to be used is the SMTP corresponding to WAN2 and vice versa.
Implementation of authentication with the mail server wil be useful.
Possibility of two mail servers with indication of the corresponding WAN is also useful.

I don't know how or if it's possible to set up two SMTP servers, but I know that may ISPs block SMTP traffic that is not directed to one of their SMTP servers. You could try picking just one SMTP server, and find out if it can be conacted on a non-standard port. A lot of SMTP providers allow for this.
If you can configure a single SMTP server on a non-standard port, you should be able to conatct that SMTP server from anywhere on the internet because the traffic won't be blocked (at least not port-based blocking, which is what most ISPs use).
So in a scenario where WAN1 is the ISP who owns the SMTP server and WAN2 is a diferent ISP that blocks standard SMTP traffic...
1) If both WANs are working, SMTP traffic goes out WAN1. No problem.
2) If only WAN1 is working, SMTP traffic goes out WAN1. No problem.
3) If only WAN2 is working, SMTP traffic goes out WAN2, but is not blocked because it is on a non-standard port. No problem.
I hope that helps.

LRT224 and Spotify/port forwarding on dual WAN set-up.

Very pleased with the LRT224, which was easy to set up (dual WAN, one cable modem, one VDSL). I'm using it for a small home-based business with several PC's, and it's worked a dream in the load-balancing mode. My request is beyond my current technical knowledge, however: we have Spotify on one PC for "background entertainment". It's a total bandwidth-hog, so I'd like to set it up to use the slower of the two WANs (VDSL) only. I'm something of a newbie to the techniques of port forwarding, so I'd be really grateful if someone could describe the steps to bond all Spotify inbound/outbound traffic to WAN2. Is this even possible...? Thanks in advance - Steve

You can define a specific IP addresses or specific application service ports to go through a user-assigned WAN for external connections via Protocol Binding. Just bind the MAC address of your device to an IP address to properly route traffic to the specific device by IP and MAC binding.

Dual wan failover config: failback does not always work as expected for existing LAN traffic flows

I have an 881 router configured with 2 dhcp WAN connections. I am trying to configure failure detection of the primary connection (I do not really care about the secondary at this time).
I have an ip sla/track configured to monitor the primary WAN connection, and if it stops passing traffic it removes that route, passing all traffic out the second WAN connection. When the first connection is restored it should restore the route and everything should pass through the first connection again. This works for all my tests except one. If I start a ping stream from a client "ping 8.8.8.8 -t" and disconnect the primary connection it will lose a few packets but then use the secondary connection in about 15 seconds. After restoring the primary connection all new traffic will use the primary connection, but the ping stream will then stop working (fails over, but not back). If I stop the ping stream for a time (not sure how long is required, but my test was over a minute) it will then use the primary connection like all other new traffic. A stop of a few seconds is not enough, and even opening up a second command prompt to ping the same target also does not work (pinging new targets works as desired). It is as if something is caching the route/session/whatever and it has to have a window of no traffic before expiring/relearning the route. This means any sustained traffic to the original target will not work until it is stopped for a certain time to let "something" age out.
I need to know if there is a way to "flush the cache" (or whatever) during fail-back to force the primary route to be used after fail-back, or something else that will have the same effect. My suspicion is that the second route gets "preferred" because the first is removed by the sla, and when the sla returns the route to the list the existing traffic flow is not aware of the route list change, using the last known good route (which now does not pass traffic). The Issue here is that it takes a length of time for the now bad route to get flushed, which is greater than I want to have.
config (edited):
interface FastEthernet3
description Backup ISP
switchport access vlan 800
no ip address
interface FastEthernet4
description Primary ISP
ip dhcp client route track 100
ip address dhcp
ip nat outside
ip virtual-reassembly in
duplex auto
speed auto
crypto ipsec client ezvpn EZVPN-to-1941
interface Vlan800
description Backup ISP
ip address dhcp
ip nat outside
ip virtual-reassembly in
track 100 list boolean or
object 101
object 102
track 101 ip sla 10 reachability
track 102 ip sla 20 reachability
ip sla 10
icmp-echo 4.2.2.2 source-interface FastEthernet4
threshold 1000
timeout 1500
frequency 5
ip sla schedule 10 life forever start-time now
ip sla 20
icmp-echo 208.67.222.222 source-interface FastEthernet4
threshold 1000
timeout 1500
frequency 5
ip sla schedule 20 life forever start-time now
ip route 4.2.2.2 255.255.255.255 FastEthernet4 permanent
ip route 10.1.2.0 255.255.255.0 <1941 wan ip removed>
ip route <1941 wan ip removed> 255.255.255.255 FastEthernet4 permanent
ip route 208.67.222.222 255.255.255.255 FastEthernet4 permanent
ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 Vlan800 dhcp 254
ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 FastEthernet4 dhcp
Observation: the last 2 routes appear in the order shown above. Even though the vlan800 route has a higher administrative cost it is in front of the FA4 route, could this be contributing to the issue? Is there a way to ensure the FA4 route is always listed before vlan800 at all times?

I have an 881 router configured with 2 dhcp WAN connections. I am trying to configure failure detection of the primary connection (I do not really care about the secondary at this time).
I have an ip sla/track configured to monitor the primary WAN connection, and if it stops passing traffic it removes that route, passing all traffic out the second WAN connection. When the first connection is restored it should restore the route and everything should pass through the first connection again. This works for all my tests except one. If I start a ping stream from a client "ping 8.8.8.8 -t" and disconnect the primary connection it will lose a few packets but then use the secondary connection in about 15 seconds. After restoring the primary connection all new traffic will use the primary connection, but the ping stream will then stop working (fails over, but not back). If I stop the ping stream for a time (not sure how long is required, but my test was over a minute) it will then use the primary connection like all other new traffic. A stop of a few seconds is not enough, and even opening up a second command prompt to ping the same target also does not work (pinging new targets works as desired). It is as if something is caching the route/session/whatever and it has to have a window of no traffic before expiring/relearning the route. This means any sustained traffic to the original target will not work until it is stopped for a certain time to let "something" age out.
I need to know if there is a way to "flush the cache" (or whatever) during fail-back to force the primary route to be used after fail-back, or something else that will have the same effect. My suspicion is that the second route gets "preferred" because the first is removed by the sla, and when the sla returns the route to the list the existing traffic flow is not aware of the route list change, using the last known good route (which now does not pass traffic). The Issue here is that it takes a length of time for the now bad route to get flushed, which is greater than I want to have.
config (edited):
interface FastEthernet3
description Backup ISP
switchport access vlan 800
no ip address
interface FastEthernet4
description Primary ISP
ip dhcp client route track 100
ip address dhcp
ip nat outside
ip virtual-reassembly in
duplex auto
speed auto
crypto ipsec client ezvpn EZVPN-to-1941
interface Vlan800
description Backup ISP
ip address dhcp
ip nat outside
ip virtual-reassembly in
track 100 list boolean or
object 101
object 102
track 101 ip sla 10 reachability
track 102 ip sla 20 reachability
ip sla 10
icmp-echo 4.2.2.2 source-interface FastEthernet4
threshold 1000
timeout 1500
frequency 5
ip sla schedule 10 life forever start-time now
ip sla 20
icmp-echo 208.67.222.222 source-interface FastEthernet4
threshold 1000
timeout 1500
frequency 5
ip sla schedule 20 life forever start-time now
ip route 4.2.2.2 255.255.255.255 FastEthernet4 permanent
ip route 10.1.2.0 255.255.255.0 <1941 wan ip removed>
ip route <1941 wan ip removed> 255.255.255.255 FastEthernet4 permanent
ip route 208.67.222.222 255.255.255.255 FastEthernet4 permanent
ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 Vlan800 dhcp 254
ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 FastEthernet4 dhcp
Observation: the last 2 routes appear in the order shown above. Even though the vlan800 route has a higher administrative cost it is in front of the FA4 route, could this be contributing to the issue? Is there a way to ensure the FA4 route is always listed before vlan800 at all times?

SA520 and dual wan

Hello!
Have bought a SA520 and tries to setup with 2 wan. 1 with static and 1 with dhcp. After I set the optional port - wan mode to load balancing, and look in the dashboard it shows that wan interface is up and with right static adress, but the optional(wan) shows down and now ipadress. If I put the cable from optional port into a computer, I got ipadress and internet connection, so the line is ok.
What are I doing wrong??
Regards
Kåre!

I will update on things I have tried to get this working.
I have checked that Content filtering and ProtectLink are both disabled due to protocol binding not working with them.
I have setup IP Alias on both Wan ports and changed outgoing firewall setting to Block all then added Firewall rules to allow access through a single Wan.
I setup the IP of the IP alias of WAN1 as Gateway for the machine.
Nothing that I have tried has worked and I am thinking the inbound binding is only working because of the port forwarding.

Simplest dual-WAN setup for LRT224 ?

Hi folks
Hope someone can help with some insight / advice here.
First, some background :
For a while I’ve been using a conventional ADSL modem-router device to connect to my primary ISP, and thereby provide internet connectivity to a number of desktop PCs, laptops and other mobile devices in a small office environment. I plug the “output” (LAN port) of the ADSL modem-router into a switch, and I also plug a dual-band wireless access point (WAP) into the switch to provide wireless access for the mobile devices. Generally this all works fine.
One problem of course is that if/when my ISP goes down - which does happen occasionally - I have no internet. Also, I am starting to need extra bandwidth, and ADSL connectivity has pretty much reached its speed ceiling in my area. So I’ve been looking at ways of providing redundancy and higher speed by having multiple connections, possibly with different technologies and different ISPs. One option is to go with multiple ADSL connections; another (perhaps better) option is to go with a high-speed fixed-wireless (LTE) connection. With LTE, I can easily get over 30Mbps, so I’ve gone with that option for now. FTTH may be an option on the future. Obviously I needed a 2- or 3-WAN router device to do the connection management.
I had a preference for a dual-WAN router that isn’t tied to any particular communication technology (like ADSL, or VDSL) to give a degree of future-proofing for new technologies like FTTH. I prefer modem devices that have a conventional ethernet port as an output, and hence router devices that have ethernet ports for WAN inputs. This eliminates “combined” devices like Draytek’s “Vigor” ADSL+WAN modem-routers, or routers that have provision to connect a USB 3G stick modem for failover.
While shopping around, I looked at options like the Cisco RV042/043, the Peplink Balance 20/30, and the Belkin/Linksys LRT224. The LRT224 seemed to offer a reasonable compromise between price, features and performance, so I went with it.
Both my CPE devices are combined modem-routers that completely manage the connection to their respective ISPs, presenting me simply with an ethernet port (or ports) for connection to my local LAN. Specifically, I’m using a D-Link DSL-2500U ADSL modem (1 LAN port) and a Huawei B593s-601 LTE modem (4 LAN ports). Both include the usual functions such as DHCP server, NAT, firewall etc. Previously I’d always give the ADSL modem a fixed IP, and then it let it handle DHCP for the whole of the downstream network. So far, so good.
My requirements for now are pretty straightforward :
- Simple failover operation, ie if one ISP (WAN) goes down, the router should transparently and quickly re-route traffic to the other ISP.
- Load-balancing, ie the ability to apportion traffic between the two ISPs according to a number of different algorithms. Ideally I would want to see options like : equal traffic (bytes) per ISP, % traffic split (eg 60:40), pro-rata split based on connection speed or latency, etc etc ..
- Ability to log into the ‘Web control panel for any of the three devices (LTE modem, ADSL mode, or dual-WAN router) directly from the office LAN without unplugging or re-cabling anything.
- I've no need to use the VPN functionality on the LRT224 at the moment, though that might come later.
Here’s where I need some input and help :
So far, the only way I’ve been able to get this all to work together is as follows :
1) Set up the ADSL modem with a fixed IP of 192.168.1.1 and let it do DHCP on a range like 192.168.1.50/149.
2) Set up the LTE modem with a fixed IP of 192.168.2.1 and let it do DHCP on a range like 192.168.2.50/149.
3) Set up the LRT224 to get WAN-side IP’s from the upstream devices on both WAN1 and WAN2.
4) Set the LRT224 in “Gateway” mode.
5) Set up the LRT224 with a fixed IP of 192.168.0.1, and to issue downstream DHCP IP addresses in the range 192.168.0.50/149.
What I've noticed in trying to get this all to work is the following:
6) This only works (and gives visibility of all 3 devices) when the two modem devices are on different subnets (like 192.168.1.x and 192.168.2.x). Trying to put them both on the same subnet as the downstream side (all on 192.168.0.x) just doesn't work, or one device is not visible.
7) This only works with the LRT224 in "Gateway" mode, even though "Router" mode seems more fitting.
The setup given above (1 through 5) does work, and gives a situation like the following :
Failover works OK, and I can see any of the three edvices from the office LAN by connecting to any of the assigned IPs.
However, the problem is that the throughput really sucks.
If I connect the LTE modem (only) direct into the office LAN, I get in excess of 20Mbps downlink speed. However, when connecting via the LRT224, I don't even get half that speed, even if the LRT224 is in simple failover mode and the ADSL modem is turned off or out of the picture.
Given that the LRT224 isn't "processing" the packets at all, and there's no VPN overhead, I find it hard to understand why it sucks up over 50% of the throughput. Also, the reviews I read on the LRT224 listed throughputs in the hundreds of Mbps, so this really shouldn't even be a factor. Also, having the LRT224 eat half the throughput partly defeats the one object (higher speed).
So my question is : Is the above setup really the way to do what I want ? Or is there a better way ? The upstream arrangements with dual DHCP on different subnets seems overly complex. Is there a simpler way with PPoE, or PPTP, etc ?
What might I be doing wrong ?
Any input or advice would be much appreciated.
Thanks

Thanks for the suggestions, guys; although I've pretty much covered all of those things.
For info :
1) The router came with firmware v1.0.0.9 (Nov 25, 2013 - the initial release), but I have updated it to the latest v1.0.2.06 (Mar 28, 2014). (This is the third release in 4 months, so it seems Linksys is working fairly actively on LRT2x4 firmware).
2) I have the "Maximum Bandwidth" figures (reached at Configuration / System Management / Bandwidth Management) set to the appropriate values, including a maximum downstream value of 61 440kbps (60Mbps) for the WAN port to which the LTE modem is connected. My understanding, though, is that the LRT224 doesn't DO anything with this information unless there are one or more bandwidth management policies set. (My understanding may be wrong, and the manual isn't much help). I have no bandwidth management policies set.
3) I did try disabling all of the firewall rules as suggested by Flybyknight - no improvement.
One interesting (and unintended / undesired) consequence of my setup is that I can only "see" the configuration pages (web interfaces) for both upstream modems (ADSL and LTE) when the router is in "Load Balance" mode. If it is in "Failover" mode and the primary WAN is up, then I can't see the modem on the secondary (failover) WAN. I assume this is because traffic is only being routed to the active WAN port.
I guess my uncertainty is more about the upstream setup, ie the way in which the upsream-facing WAN ports on the LRT are configured to talk to the downstream-facing LAN ports on the respective modems.
The user guide for the LRT224 is really poor, unfortunately. It doesn't explain the actual workings of the various features at all. For instance, it does not explain what the ACTUAL working of "load balance" is. Does the device route the same amount of traffic (bytes) to both WAN ports, or does it do so in proportion to their configured speeds ? Proper explanations for these features are really indispensable! Belkin/Linksys, are you listening ??

LRT224 Load Balancing and Link Failover

Hi, I am new to this forum. I have recently set up the LRT224 with two different ISP's. I am having problems configuring the Load Balance and Link Failover.
When I have Load Balance selected only one ISP (WAN 1) is active, the other (WAN2, ISP modem) remains inactive. Why is Load Balance only engaging one ISP?
When I have Link Failover selected, even with attempts and seconds configured to one second, and WAN1 has packets lost, it doesn't switch over to WAN2.
I am not tech savey but any help will be greatly appreciated so that I can get both ISP's active with Load Balance or at least have Link Failover work almost instantly. Thanks.

Hi @BSue2015,
If both WAN1 and WAN2 are already getting IP Addresses from your ISPs then we can say that Load Balance is working. To check it further, do a speed test by going to http://www.speedtest.net. Dual WAN connections are doubling the amount of available full speed connections due to the load balancing. The speed should have its maximum throughput even if you have several users on the network.

Lrt224 dual wan router

Hi im new in dual wan setup. Please help.
Heres my problem
Wan 1 dynamic globe telecom primary
Wan 2 static pldt telecom
Link failover mode
1 router is plug in to lrt224 to serve wifi and my switch also plugin to the wireless wifi
1 cctv dvr connected to lrt224 port 9000 webport 9100 with auto detect settings setup
Now:
Sometime cctv camera broadcast to public ip when switch to wan2 but sometimes cant show also
Same way around with dynamic wan 1 as primary
Solved!
Go to Solution.

Thanks Guys, its a big help.......

OnPlus Dual WAN monitoring

Is there any way to get a single OnPlus to monitor two (or more) WAN connections at a customer site simultaneously?
I have customers that use dual wan routers (RV's and ISA's) that I would like to be able to only roll-out a single OnPlus to instead of needing to roll-out One OnPlus for each WAN and then policy route them over each individual WAN link.

The short answer is yes.
I'm assuming the dual internet connections are setup to either load balance or failover. In either situation, technically speaking, OnPlus would never lose connection unless both connections go down and thus would never alert.
So the way that I would go about monitoring both connections with a single OnPlus would be to ensure that ICMP is allowed outbound through your client's firewall. Then, after the ON100 is deployed and completes discovery, I would manually add 2 devices, one for each internet connection. I would make those devices the circuit endpoint at each provider, which is generally the gateway addresses your border router/firewall uses. I would then use ICMP monitoring on each of those devices in OnPlus to alert if it loses connection.

ASA 5505 Dual WAN - Ping inactive wan from outside?

I currently have some small branch offices using ASA 5505 with Security Plus license and dual wan connections. They are configured wil an sla monitor so if the primary WAN goes down the secondary connection becomes active. This works as expected, however...
I can't ping the non-active interface from an outside source. I beleive this is by design or due to some limitation on the 5505. The problem is that I don't know if the backup WAN connection is functioning normally without forcing the ASA to make it active. We use a flaky wireless connection for the backups. The problem recently bit me because both WAN connections were offline.
I'm looking for an easy way to monitor the inactive wan interface, preferably by pinging from an outside location. Is this possible?

Hello,
This wont work because the ASA receives the ping on the backup link but has the default route pointing to the outside.
You would have to add a more spefic route for your IP.
Example:
If you want to ping coming from IP 1.1.1.1
route outside 0 0 x.x.1.1 1 track 1
route backup 0 0 x.x.2.2 250
route backup 1.1.1.1 255.255.255.255 x.x.2.2
Regards,
Felipe.
Remember to rate useful posts.

Cisco RV042 - Dual Wan Load Balancing - Secure Site (HTTPS) Trouble

PID VID :
RV042 V03
Firmware Version :
v4.0.0.07-tm (Aug 19 2010 19:19:50)
Ever since I setup my RV042 with load balancing using the Dual Wan system I have had trouble staying connected to some secure sites. After doing some searching I found that the potential issue is the IP change mid session.
"http://www.broadbandreports.com/forum/r25537589-Cisco-RV042-can-not-use-load-balancing-for-some-web-sites"
Although my interface is significantly different I was able to find the same area in my RV042 admin area however, it doesn't seem to work.
System Management
> Dual Wan
In Wan 1 & Wan 2 I have HTTPS and HTTPS Secondary all forwarded to use Wan 2 under Protocol Binding
This however has not managed to do anything at all for my network and every computer conneceted experiences the same HTTPS irregularities at some websites.
I'm sure I must be doing something wrong, but I don't know what it is.
Both incoming connections are from the same service provider although the plans are different.
Any help with this would greatly help me stop losing my mind trying to fight with my website control panel for 10 minutes to just login and get something done.
Thanks

Any ideas or advice from anyone?

Trend Micro Dual WAN Issue

Question from a partner:
Has Trend fixed the hosted issue with two WAN connections? It used to be that even though your device had dual WANs, Trend would only forward the emails to one of the connections. If it went down, you had to submit an email request to move it to the other connection and it could be 12-24 hours before it went into effect and 99 times out of 100, the original WAN port would be back online. It does slightly defeat the purpose of having Dual WANs if you cannot receive email in this day and age.
Any help out there?
Art

I got with Trend on this because I thought it was something very interesting....
here is what they said...
I think you’re talking about the same setup as a customer having 2 mail servers, right? If so we have had a solution for this for a while.
They want us to send email to 1.1.1.1, but if that is down, send it to 2.2.2.2.
They would use the MX record method.
A customer would need to create a hostname that points to two MX records.
Give the primary site IN MX 10 and the backup IN MX 20.
Then we change the IMHS configuration to use the hostname they created.
>cat imhs.multiple.customer.mailservers
Hello,
Our postfix servers will only allow us to configure 1 IP address or 1 hostname in our transport file to deliver email back to the customer. If the customer has 2 or more mail servers they want us to use, they will need to create a new hostname DNS entry and point it to their multiple servers.
If they want our servers to try to deliver the email to their mail servers in a specific order, say mailserver1 and if that server is not available then try to deliver the email to the mailserver2, then they would need to setup the following DNS entries as an example:
mailserver1.customerdomain.com.    IN A 1.2.3.4
mailserver2.customerdomain.com.    IN A 2.3.4.5
imhs.customerdomain.com.   IN MX 10 mailserver1.customerdomain.com.
imhs.customerdomain.com.   IN MX 20 mailserver2.customerdomain.com.
Then we setup our server to deliver to imhs.customerdomain.com.
customerdomain.com     smtp:imhs.customerdomain.com:25
If a specific order is not important then they can just make imhs.customerdomain.com point to multiple IP addresses:
imhs.customerdomain.com.   IN A 1.2.3.4
imhs.customerdomain.com.   IN A 1.2.3.5
This will make our server send an email to 1.2.3.4 and the next email to 1.2.3.5, then to 1.2.3.4, etc.
Then we setup our server to deliver to imhs.customerdomain.com.
customerdomain.com     smtp:[imhs.customerdomain.com]:25
Our servers will only deliver the email to the first server that will accept the email. They will not deliver the same email to both mail servers.
I hope that is detail enough,
Regards,
Nosa

RV325 Dual WAN Router - Use only one IP

I have a rv325 dual wan router. I have setup load balancing on the router, but I don't want one of the servers here being load balanced. How do i set it to only use a specific WAN while everything else is load balanced?

Michael,
I like to share link that will has a step by step screenshots on how to configure protocol binding. Your source ip will be server and Destination is whichever WAN you are shaping that traffic. Hope this helps
Article ID: 4242
http://sbkb.cisco.com

867VAE dual WAN SDSL and ADSL failover

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for