I was thinking about that, 10 doesn't give much room for manipulation On Sat, Sep 2, 2017 at 9:26 PM, George Skorup <george.sko...@cbcast.com> wrote:
> 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? >> >> >
