How to configure load balancing to achieve this:


#1

Good day. I just set up my first pep-link router (Balance 30). I jumped ship from SYSWAN. Setup went well and it is working, but after reading through the config options for load balancing I am not quite sure how to configure to achieve my desired goal.

CONFIG:
firmware: 5.1.5
WAN links: 2
LAN links 2

I want ALL traffic from one of the LAN links (192.168.10.2) to go through one particular WAN link (WAN1) ALL the time… except when the WAN link fails.

I want ALL traffic from the other LAN link (192.168.10.3) to go through the other WAN link (WAN2) ALL the time… except when the WAN link fails.

Again, only when the link fails do I want the LAN traffic to fail over to the other link.

I have set up two custom rules to achieve this, but of the choices: weighted balance, persistence, Enforced, prority, overflow… I am not seeing which one is right for my needs.
*
EDIT: I think the config would be to use WEIGHTED BALANCE for both custom rules, and set the desired WAN link to 100 and the other WAN link to 0. Please let me know if my guess is correct. I am assuming that such a config would auto failover to the link set to 0 if the main link fails.*

thank you for any tips!
jim




#2

Dear Jim,

You have to create rules using **Priority **algorithm. Traffic will use the higher priority unless the higher priority WAN goes down , then Peplink will switch to the lower one.


#3

trying that now…


#4

Actually this does not appear to be working as expected. I made the suggested changes, but traffic is being routed according to the two custom rules. With both links up all traffic on the 192.168.10.2 should route to WAN1. All traffic on the 192.168.10.3 should route to WAN2.

Rather what’s taking precedence is the order the rules are listed. If the rule for the dot 2 is listed first, almost all traffic goes to WAN1. The source network is mostly ignored whether it is be the dot 2 or the dot 3. Likewise if the rule for the dot 3 is listed first, almost all traffic goes to WAN2.





#5

Couldn’t fit this 4th screenshot in last post for some reason: