That's typically what I do, just make the parallel backup path one
higher at both ends.
But I'll tell you this right now, consider a larger scale for your
interface costs. As your OSPF domain grows into more complex rings or
more of a mesh, shit will start to get complicated and you'll wish you
had more granularity. What I'm moving to is interface cost based on link
bandwidth. Kinda like Cisco's auto-cost, but not auto because MikroTik
is stupid. Anyway.. take 100,000 รท link bw in Mbps. So 1G=100. An AF24
around 770Mbps would be a cost of about 130. A 360Mbps SAF link would be
about 277. Etc, etc. Lots of granularity for tweaking traffic flow.
On 9/2/2017 4:08 PM, Steve Jones wrote:
we are replacing two links, currently cheap 5ghz (one epmp ptp and one
ubnt nanobridge) with mimosa 11ghz, we dont need that much bandwidth
right now so im leaving the old links in parallel.
I just put the path cost on the interface for the 5ghz at 11 and left
the 11ghz at 10. it seems to serve this purpose. but the other links
in the redundancy will see that extra 1 in path cost on failover, not
so awful a deal since it will drop capacity by 90 percent, but would i
have been better to leave the 5ghz at 10 and drop the 11ghz to 5?
