BGP Support on Balance and MAX devices

A few times in projects having BGP support on these series devices will be very useful and give us options on using the kit in different scenarios (one example is on a private APN where the BGP protocol is used to control the routing and failover and tunnelling isn’t required at the WAN side of the device.

Do Peplink have any roadmap plans to add in BGP support to any of the models?

1 Like

We received the similar request before. Anyway, this is an interesting request. Since the BGP is used to control the routing and failover while Balance/Max router also having the proprietary load balance algorithm, may I know which is the preferred method? I just want to understand more on the request, hope you don’t mind.

Thank you.


Hi TK, sure no problem.

Basically we on occasion have projects where the edge devices at site wont necessarily tunnel back to a balance hub, eg: Max in branch going back to a core network over a private cellular APN which uses BGP, having the edge devices being able to take part in WAN side BGP conversations and routing updates would be great as it means tunnelling isnt required to get routing updates.

Tunnelling is great when on a public network and an absolute requirement but when on a private APN for example it adds an overhead which isnt really needed as the network is deemed secure.

Aside from this, using MAX devices in failover from a fixed line existing WAN that uses BGP (eg: MPLS) in order to connect it directly to this network using the Ethernet WAN interface, at the moment a device supporting BGP would need to be used.


Hi Chris,

I know where you come from. Your request has been submitted to engineering team to raise the priority.

Thanks for your feature request.


I would like to second this request. My organization has legacy applications tied to IPs assigned to our ASN. Currently there is no way to use the peplink gear without putting it behind a BGP aware device, which adds cost and complexity. A full BGP implementation of course would be great, but simply being able to advertise my ARIN block of IPs on even just one of the WAN interfaces on the peplink would be a win.


1 Like

+1 from here also, very useful to have bgp.

1 Like

+1 for BGP, would be a very useful feature to add to Max and Balance products.

1 Like

+1 ! I have been asked BGP support again today… Once each month in fact :slight_smile:

1 Like

+100 for this feature! :slight_smile:

1 Like

Currently I’ve received a request from one of our partners:

The end customer is a big retailer in Europe. They need PIN transactions to be redundant. Our partner suggested the BR1-MINI (which I think is an excellent choice) BUT the end-customer’s only condition is that the routers needs to support the BGP protocol for redundancy.

This could be a big project and an enterance into the Retail business in Europe. Unfortunately our partner needs to suggest other brand who support BGP…

I really hope this feature will be included on short terms, because this could make the difference between Peplink and another brand in the retail business. I hope I’ve let Peplink realize by this post why this is important and why this is a valuable asset to set up in the Peplink routers.


We are currently in talks with a big cable ISP, who use Huawei core routers in their datacentres across the Netherlands.
Their Huawei core routers all intercommunicate via BGP.
They steer their customers to other connections/datacenters when a connection/datacenter fails.

They want to expand their services by providing a 4G backup with their cable lines, since you can never be too sure.
A hard demand is that every router that comes into their datacentre has to support BGP.
They are interested in PepVPN/SpeedFusion Hot Failover, but they will not even consider Peplink/Pepwave if there is no BGP support.

They are going to have to fill in their first 4G backup project VERY soon, which consists of 200+ retail stores that want 4G backup for their PIN transactions.
That’s just their first project, with many more to come.
No BGP support means no Peplink.

Long story short, we need this functionality A.S.A.P.

1 Like

We regularly see a similar use case to the one Joey VdG wrote of.
Please please drop RIP support, and add BGP.:slight_smile:

BTW, OSPF appears to need some work, as it us advertising type 5 LSAs onto the LAN when the LANs are all in the backbone area.
Then there is the ‘route conflict’ problem {possibly just cosmetic still} also.

Now that SFVPN seems finally to be stable again in 6.3.4/7.0.x {Thank you!}… it would be great if you could make the dynamic routing more flexible and configurable for us with networks that have many devices.

All the best

+1 for BGP. Seeing this requirement more and more often now and having to install 3rd party routers inline just for BGP support is getting kinda boring…


I heard that BGP support is making its way to the development roadmap. No ETA yet but it is coming!


Yay! Great news.

1 Like


1 Like