Use PBR http://blog.butchevans.com/2008/09/mikrotik-policy-routing-implementation-example/ On Jan 14, 2016 8:51 PM, "That One Guy /sarcasm" <thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Im having a hard time grasping ospf filters > > Is there a way to announce the /29 out ether1 at a lower cost the i > announce on ether2 and announce the /30 out ether2 at a lower cost than > ether1? That way the rest of the network uses the preferred interface to > route each in except in the case of failover? I could just use source based > routes with differing metrics within the router for the default routes of > the two? > > On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 11:06 AM, Josh Reynolds <j...@kyneticwifi.com> > wrote: > >> Ehhh correction. I think you could do what you wanted with VRF, but you >> actually could likely get by with policy based routing (PBR) so the routing >> table was aware of both interfaces. As ugly as PBR is in most cases, it >> might be a bit cleaner here. >> On Jan 14, 2016 11:00 AM, "Josh Reynolds" <j...@kyneticwifi.com> wrote: >> >>> Look into VRF. >>> On Jan 14, 2016 10:52 AM, "That One Guy /sarcasm" < >>> thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> We have a customer who has two connections to us >>>> Their firewall eth0 connects to ether4 with a /29 and their eth1 >>>> connects to ether5 >>>> They have a 3rd party 10mb fiber circuit on ether1 that terminates in >>>> our NOC for the /29 traffic and the ether2 connects to our wireless network >>>> for their /30 >>>> >>>> the /30 is for their internet traffic, the /29 is for their VOIP and VPN >>>> >>>> I have OSPF enabled on the fiber, so both subnets are routing through >>>> the fiber right now, Im trying to avoid any static routes on anything other >>>> than the CPE mikrotik to get traffic flowing the right direction, allowing >>>> the fiber to fail over to the wireless both in failure and as a last resort >>>> for spillover above the 10mb >>>> >>>> Is this clear as mud? Currently we only have static and OSPF capability >>>> on our network >>>> >>>> -- >>>> If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your >>>> team as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team. >>>> >>> > > > -- > If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team > as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team. >
