I have a Balance Fiber 310 5G which has Cable Internet on WAN1 with dynamic IP; 5G with external outdoor antenna; and currently inactive Starlink not connected.
I want to use my Dream Machine Pro as my primary router again and avoid double NAT, but getting a Static IP on my Cable Internet while possible, is a pain as I’d have to do a full new installation and it’s not that important so I haven’t bothered.
I do have Starlink, but it’s cancelled at the moment. I can reactivate it, and I’d do so with the Static IP plan. My thought was to connect Starlink to WAN1 and set it up with Drop in Mode, and WAN2 as the Cable; however, I don’t really want Starlink to be primary at all. I either want it disabled as priorty 2, or if I do have it active, it would be for load balancing and a lower priority so that cable is always used primarily.
My biggest concern is Teams video calls since the Dream Machine would have the Starlink IP assigned to it’s WAN, even though 99% of all traffic would be going over the cable. I just didn’t want there to be any audio or video issues if the Dream Machine thinks its IP is the Starlink yet all traffic is on the cable.
Is this a bad idea, or should I just suck it up and get static IP on the cable and call it a day?
What do you need a public IP for actually - that bit is not clear.
If you are worried about double NAT then disable NAT on your dream machine pro and either use OSPF to advertise the networks on its LAN to the Balance or setup default routes on the balance to forward traffic on to those LAN segments.
You can setup drop in mode and then use outbound policies to control traffic flows in anyway you like. Even buy some SFC to bond your cable and 5G and send all teams traffic over that…
I don’t need a public IP, I’m just trying to avoid double NAT so was thinking drop in mode was needed, but using OSPF could be an option so I’ll check into that.
I’m a Microsoft Teams Engineer and routing Teams over VPN is against Microsoft best practice so don’t want to go the SFC route.
@Alan_Lee8333:
Kibbitz: I’m curious about this. Why would Microsoft prefer users not route Teams traffic over an unencrypted tunnel intended to reduce latency and jitter, and improve reliability (i.e., SpeedFusion)? I am curious about the rationale. (In my question I want to eliminate any reference to the type of goofy “hide your location” or “improve your security” VPNs that are so widely advertised. Does Microsoft understand there may be a difference?)
Don’t even need OSPF of course, you could just add static routes on the balance for the VLANs behind your dream machine but OSPF would make all of that automagic.
Routing Teams over single channel VPN might be. Teams absolutely loves speedfusion bonded VPN though
