Setting up failover in an RV042 V3

Question

I have a new (about 4 months old) RV042 V3 4.0.0.07 firmware that I am trying to use in failover mode.  I have a SOHO and I normally use cable Internet connection.  It is quite fast (15 megabit), but not super reliable.  I have added DSL (3.3 megabit) which is five nines (supposedly) but not so quick. 
I have a Westell 7500 wireless DSL modem located in the basement, where the telephone lines enter the building.  This gives me a wireless link to the second floor server room through  a wireless router that connects to WAN 2 of the RV042.   The cable modem is in the server room and connects directly to the WAN 1 of the RV042.  The cable works, but when it goes down, the DSL link comes up but does not allow Internet traffic.  The RV042 is set up as a Bridge and I have set up port forwarding to get the cable to work and used similar firewall commands to route the traffic if the router switched over.  I suspect that the problem is in the port forwarding (port 80) or the firewall rules(which are pretty simple) because everything looks like it switches over, but it just doesn't work on WAN2. 
Can anyone shed any light on this problem, which does not seem like it should exist?
Thanks, Bob

Answer 1

If you plug a PC into R2, do you have internet access? Yes, Ethernet works from R2 including DHCP to the plugged in PC
What is the Default Gateway? See data below:
Laptop plugged into R2
Ethernet adapter Local Area Connection:
Connection-specific DNS Suffix . : westell.com
Description . . . . . . . . . . . : Realtek RTL8139/810x Family Fast Ethernet NIC
Physical Address. . . . . . . . . : **Deleted**
Dhcp Enabled. . . . . . . . . . . : Yes
Autoconfiguration Enabled . . . . : Yes
IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : 192.168.2.61
Subnet Mask . . . . . . . . . . . : 255.255.255.0
Default Gateway . . . . . . . . . : 192.168.2.22
DHCP Server . . . . . . . . . . . : 192.168.2.1
DNS Servers . . . . . . . . . . . : **Deleted**
Route Test from Laptop via R2
tracert google.com
Tracing route to google.com over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.2.22
2 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms 192.168.2.1
Router 2 IP Data:
Local IP Address 192.168.2.22
Subnet Mask 255.255.255.0
Gateway 192.168.2.1
Local DNS 192.168.2.1
Default Gateway on WAN2: Initially DHCP value from R1, but I changed it to use a static IP setup as you suggested, but since a PC works on R2  I figured it was OK.  The DHCP numbers were the exact numbers that I assigned as static as suggested in the your next question.  Apparently this change makes WAN2 work.  Not sure if that was the only problem because I also gave R4 a static address of 192.168.10.2, figuring if one static was good, then two statics would be at least twice as good. 
Have you tried giving WAN2 a static IP address and gateway that points to R1?
I did as you suggested and put static WAN2 as 192.168.2.2. It makes it cleaner.  Please look at my firewall rules, I know that at least one is not right, and if I look at the SysLog I get lots of questions.  There is a web server at 192.168.10.11, which has always been there but not on the drawing.
Default gateway on WAN1: From DHCP from cable company modem and it works as it is supposed to:
IP Add. xx.xx.xx.71, Default Gate. xx.xx.xx.1, Dyndns enabled
I have added an updated network drawing and some router configurations.  Note the stuff in the SysLog, which I can't get figured out.  The syslog concerns me that my firewall is not set up right.   I added the webserver to the drawing, which I have updated many times this weekend as work proceeded.
*** Solution Comments ***
As noted in the multiple edited section above, adding static addresses appears to have fixed my failover problem.  I had left the question open because I was seeing firewall log activity.  After several days of digging around I figured out what eth0 and eth1 were.   They are LAN and WAN1 respectively.  Since the system is operating with WAN2 connected and WAN1 blocked this is apparently normal operation since WAN1 is blocked by policy. 
Since it appears to fail over after changing to static addresses, I guess this question was answered by mpyhala when he asked me if I was using static addresses.   I have always done that, and I cannot imagine why I didn't do it this time.  Thanks for getting me on the right track.
As for the Log activity, it is to be expected  and the log activity appears to make sense, when you consider the traffic path.
Thanks, for the help
Message was edited by: Bob Lawson
Message was edited by: Bob Lawson
Message was edited by: Bob Lawson