Peplink Balance HA with 3 different ISP Line


I intend to have the attached setup. having fail-over capability at each layer, ASG220 HA enabled, Core Switch HA Enabled, Peplink 320 HA enabled using 3 different ISP (Fiber Connection - PPPoE Configuration each).

Will my diagram works? What will be the best approach for HA in this regard.


Generally the setup looks good but there is no inter-connect cable or etherchannel (etherchannel not supported) between the Balance 310.

You may refer to this article for information about the Balance HA setup.

Hi Stanley,

Thanks, understand that ether-channel are not supported, will take it out.

Question 2: what will happen to the ISP 3 then? Will add another switch then?

Question 3: can i make use of my core switch, allocate 3 different dedicated vlan for each ISP line?

Question 4: in 1+1 backup mode its considered as active-standby how’s then the traffic load-balance together? similarly for the drop-in mode is this considered as active - active. what i want to accomplish is to load balance the 3 ISP and achieve redundancy at the hardware layer.


For Question 2, you can add another switch or make use of the current switch. The reason for having different switch instead of one in your diagram is to avoid single point of failure when the switch is faulty.

For Question 3, yes, you can always configure a logical switch at the core switch with 3 different vlan.

For Question 4, Peplink HA is in active/standby mode only. All traffic will be handled by the Master (Active) unit until the unit failed. All the 3 ISP links will be active on the Master (Active) unit until the unit failed.

Hi Stanley,

Thanks for the reply i have successfully simulated the scenario and is working perfectly fine. the only concern i have is that how Balance 310 fail-over.

  1. After a successful fail-over i cant fully see the full tabs of the slave balance 310 as with the master. (see attached picture with name slave)
  2. After simulating all wan failure in the master it is unfortunate that peplink wont fail-over to the slave.
  3. It seems that fail-over will occur if there is an issue with connection from the lan ports to the switch.

Can you please advise.


Glad to hear that the simulation works fine.

  1. Certain configuration options are disabled on the Slave unit to avoid configuration mis-match with Master unit. Only the Master unit configuration will be replicated to the Slave unit and not the other way.

  2. The failover detection is only on LAN (heart beat between LAN physical IP). WAN failover is taken care by the redundant WAN link itself.

  3. Correct as explained on the above.


What happen to the slave then if the master is unrecoverable? will it replicate/synchronize back the master config to the new hardware replacement?

When you mention redundant wan link you are referring to?

You can remove the HA setup to perform configuration changes. During hardware replacement, you can change the Slave unit to Master and set the replacement unit to Slave to sync the configuration to the replacement unit.