another example.. https://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Manual:Bonding_Examples
Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet & Telecom 7266 SW 48 Street Miami, FL 33155 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net > From: "Steve Jones" <thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> > To: af@afmug.com > Sent: Thursday, September 7, 2017 1:22:26 PM > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] easy backup link failover > how does one do that in mikrotik? > On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 9:48 AM, can...@believewireless.net < > p...@believewireless.net > wrote: >> Depends on your layout, but you could also bond them together in failover >> mode. >> Then no OSPF timeout hit. >> On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 11:52 AM, Kurt Fankhauser < lists.wavel...@gmail.com > >> wrote: >>> OSPF cost for backup route definitely needs to be higher... you can >>> standardize >>> all you want on some numbering system but as your network grows and you >>> need to >>> push some traffic in some directions and not others you will need the >>> flexibility to manipulate path costs quite a bit. >>> On Sun, Sep 3, 2017 at 4:59 PM, Faisal Imtiaz < fai...@snappytelecom.net > >>> wrote: >>>> Some more food for thought... >>>> We are finding that setting up /configuring the OSPF links as PTP tends to >>>> provide faster failover convergence >>>> which becomes even more useful when it can be combined with bfd >>>> In regards to the weights, it's more of a 'six or half a dozen of another' >>>> what >>>> values you use to affect the change will be determined by what exactly you >>>> are >>>> trying to achieve and 'flow' of traffic on your OSPF network.. >>>> Regards. >>>> Faisal Imtiaz >>>> Snappy Internet & Telecom >>>> 7266 SW 48 Street >>>> Miami, FL 33155 >>>> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 >>>> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net >>>>> From: "Steve Jones" < thatoneguyst...@gmail.com > >>>>> To: af@afmug.com >>>>> Sent: Sunday, September 3, 2017 4:47:03 PM >>>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] easy backup link failover >>>>> 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 ÷ 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?
