Asymmetric speedfusion configuration -- allow higher unidirectional traffic with higher priority (but allow that wan to fallback to UP/DOWN with lower priority)


#1

It would be great if there were a way to specify speedfusion asymmetric WAN priority like this:

WAN1 - priority: 1, direction: up/down
WAN2 - priority: 2, direction: up
WAN3 - priority: 2, direction: up/down
WAN2 - priority: 3, direction: up/down

This would mean that if WAN1 is down, and both WAN2 and WAN3 are available, then WAN2 will function asymmetrically potentially increasing the outbound speedfusion capacity by sending some outbound speedfusion traffic via both/either WAN2 and WAN3. But then if WAN3 goes down such that only WAN2 is available, the speedfusion link will keep working (albeit slower and using only WAN2’s capacity).


#2

Hello,

We do have the ability already to set asymmetric connections, sounds like you are looking for something like this, except with more granularity:



#3

Yes more granularity is what I’m after. In your example suppose both Midcontinent and i29-702 become unavailable – the speedfusion link will then fail right?

I want to able to ensure that the speedfusion link will remain functional in that case. I want to be able to say that when certain WANs are available, these other WANs should operate asymmetrically – but when certain WANs are not available, then I want those asymmetric WANs to function symmetrically …

a ui for this might look like:

Wan Connection Priority:
Priority 1:

  1. Midcontinent (specify, UP/DOWN, UP ONLY, DOWN ONLY, DON’T USE)
  2. CenturyLink (specify, UP/DOWN, UP ONlY, DOWN ONLY, DON’T USE)

Priority 2:

  1. Midcontinent (specify, UP/DOWN, UP ONLY, DOWN ONLY, DON’T USE)
  2. CenturyLink (specify, UP/DOWN, UP ONlY, DOWN ONLY, DON’T USE)

    Priority 3 …

and so on.

The idea being that the speedfusion link would use the connection profile corresponding to the highest priority level containing at least one each UP and DOWN path (or maybe allow marking one UP/DOWN WAN as the ‘match criteria’ for the profile – so the profile only matches when that WAN is available – other more complicated match schemes would be possible but I think that simple logic would accomodate a lot of common use cases …)


#4

I’m following you, so if Midco/i29 fail, Century Link should switch to up/down from just download.

We will take this into consideration on improving the feature. Engineering will provide more information to see if this is something we can add in the future.


#5

Great thanks a lot! And just to motivate this a little more – here’s some details from my use case (which may or may not be considered common).

WAN1: All you can eat satellite, WAN2: Pay for use satellite, WAN3: cellular

Would love logic sufficient for a policy like this: if all three are available, make WAN1 and WAN2 asymmetric (more stable TX when using a fast but lossy cell connection of which much of the loss happens on cellular tx ). If cellular is not available, make WAN1 UP/DOWN and WAN2 asymmetric. if only WAN2 is available, make WAN2 asymmetric