Re: [AFMUG] Mirotik help - dual backhauls and bridges

[Justin Wilson]

The VLAN method does work.  You can also do a full duplex link utilizing two 
sets of radios.  This has been around for quite some time.  But that also 
assumes you have radios of the same relative capacity.
Justin Wilson
j...@mtin.net

---
http://www.mtin.net Owner/CEO
xISP Solutions- Consulting – Data Centers - Bandwidth

http://www.midwest-ix.com  COO/Chairman
Internet Exchange - Peering - Distributed Fabric

> On Jan 3, 2017, at 11:49 AM, Adam Moffett <dmmoff...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> What Eric said.
>  
> Except, I believe you said the two links were of unequal capacity.  OSPF 
> can't natively load balance unequal paths.  If you set them to equal cost, 
> you'll actually get 2x the capacity of the smaller link, and the larger link 
> will be underutilized.  There was a trick somebody posted here a few weeks 
> ago where you create a set of VLAN's on each path and do equal cost load 
> balancing on the VLAN's instead of the real paths.  Basically if one path was 
> 3x bigger than the other, then create 3x as many VLAN's on that path.  
>  
> I haven't tried it yetseems plausible though.
>  
>  
> -- Original Message --
> From: "Eric Kuhnke" <eric.kuh...@gmail.com <mailto:eric.kuh...@gmail.com>>
> To: "af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>" <af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>>
> Sent: 12/30/2016 6:00:25 PM
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Mirotik help - dual backhauls and bridges
>  
>> Hit enter too soon. If you want two parallel PTP links between two sites, 
>> sharing traffic equally. Assuming both radio links are identical equipment 
>> and identical speed capability. Set the same OSPF cost on the router 
>> interfaces both ends. 
>> 
>> This is logically the same thing as putting two routers next to each other 
>> in a test lab environment, and running two patch cables between them in an 
>> OSPF area 0, equal cost path configuration.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 2:58 PM, Eric Kuhnke <eric.kuh...@gmail.com 
>> <mailto:eric.kuh...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> You should not be extending layer 2 switch fabrics over PTP microwave.
>> 
>> One router at each site.
>> 
>> Each router gets a /32 OSPF loopback address.
>> 
>> One OSPF /30 per radio link.
>> 
>> The only MAC addresses that should exist on the radio link (which is itself 
>> a L2 bridge) are the single MACs for the router interfaces on each end.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 12:50 PM, Ty Featherling <tyfeatherl...@gmail.com 
>> <mailto:tyfeatherl...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> I have my network setup with a common bridge (bridgeWAN) setup on each 
>> router in an area. The backhaul in goes into this bridge and any backhauls 
>> to further sites do as well. OSPF sorts out the default path and the bridge 
>> gets them there in one IP hop. I have a major site that I am added a second 
>> backhaul link to the upstream direction today (Airfiber 5x multiplexer for 
>> the win). I am trying to figure out how to bond these two backhauls from 
>> bridgeWAN on router A to bridgeWAN on router B. Any way to share the load 
>> across those links would be great. If I just plug them in spanning tree 
>> shuts one down. The real kink in the works may be that they have different 
>> capacities. What can I do? 
>> 
>> 
>> -Ty

Re: [AFMUG] Mirotik help - dual backhauls and bridges

[Adam Moffett]

What Eric said.

Except, I believe you said the two links were of unequal capacity.  OSPF 
can't natively load balance unequal paths.  If you set them to equal 
cost, you'll actually get 2x the capacity of the smaller link, and the 
larger link will be underutilized.  There was a trick somebody posted 
here a few weeks ago where you create a set of VLAN's on each path and 
do equal cost load balancing on the VLAN's instead of the real paths.  
Basically if one path was 3x bigger than the other, then create 3x as 
many VLAN's on that path.


I haven't tried it yetseems plausible though.


-- Original Message --
From: "Eric Kuhnke" <eric.kuh...@gmail.com>
To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
Sent: 12/30/2016 6:00:25 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Mirotik help - dual backhauls and bridges

Hit enter too soon. If you want two parallel PTP links between two 
sites, sharing traffic equally. Assuming both radio links are identical 
equipment and identical speed capability. Set the same OSPF cost on the 
router interfaces both ends.


This is logically the same thing as putting two routers next to each 
other in a test lab environment, and running two patch cables between 
them in an OSPF area 0, equal cost path configuration.




On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 2:58 PM, Eric Kuhnke <eric.kuh...@gmail.com> 
wrote:

You should not be extending layer 2 switch fabrics over PTP microwave.

One router at each site.

Each router gets a /32 OSPF loopback address.

One OSPF /30 per radio link.

The only MAC addresses that should exist on the radio link (which is 
itself a L2 bridge) are the single MACs for the router interfaces on 
each end.




On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 12:50 PM, Ty Featherling 
<tyfeatherl...@gmail.com> wrote:
I have my network setup with a common bridge (bridgeWAN) setup on 
each router in an area. The backhaul in goes into this bridge and any 
backhauls to further sites do as well. OSPF sorts out the default 
path and the bridge gets them there in one IP hop. I have a major 
site that I am added a second backhaul link to the upstream direction 
today (Airfiber 5x multiplexer for the win). I am trying to figure 
out how to bond these two backhauls from bridgeWAN on router A to 
bridgeWAN on router B. Any way to share the load across those links 
would be great. If I just plug them in spanning tree shuts one down. 
The real kink in the works may be that they have different 
capacities. What can I do?



-Ty

Re: [AFMUG] Mirotik help - dual backhauls and bridges

[That One Guy /sarcasm]

youll need a /30 across the ospf link on each side too for ospf to
propagate, or is there a way to do ospf without ip addressing?

On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 5:00 PM, Eric Kuhnke  wrote:

> Hit enter too soon. If you want two parallel PTP links between two sites,
> sharing traffic equally. Assuming both radio links are identical equipment
> and identical speed capability. Set the same OSPF cost on the router
> interfaces both ends.
>
> This is logically the same thing as putting two routers next to each other
> in a test lab environment, and running two patch cables between them in an
> OSPF area 0, equal cost path configuration.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 2:58 PM, Eric Kuhnke 
> wrote:
>
>> You should not be extending layer 2 switch fabrics over PTP microwave.
>>
>> One router at each site.
>>
>> Each router gets a /32 OSPF loopback address.
>>
>> One OSPF /30 per radio link.
>>
>> The only MAC addresses that should exist on the radio link (which is
>> itself a L2 bridge) are the single MACs for the router interfaces on each
>> end.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 12:50 PM, Ty Featherling > > wrote:
>>
>>> I have my network setup with a common bridge (bridgeWAN) setup on each
>>> router in an area. The backhaul in goes into this bridge and any backhauls
>>> to further sites do as well. OSPF sorts out the default path and the bridge
>>> gets them there in one IP hop. I have a major site that I am added a second
>>> backhaul link to the upstream direction today (Airfiber 5x multiplexer for
>>> the win). I am trying to figure out how to bond these two backhauls from
>>> bridgeWAN on router A to bridgeWAN on router B. Any way to share the load
>>> across those links would be great. If I just plug them in spanning tree
>>> shuts one down. The real kink in the works may be that they have different
>>> capacities. What can I do?
>>>
>>>
>>> -Ty
>>>
>>
>>
>


-- 
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.

Re: [AFMUG] Mirotik help - dual backhauls and bridges

[Eric Kuhnke]

Hit enter too soon. If you want two parallel PTP links between two sites,
sharing traffic equally. Assuming both radio links are identical equipment
and identical speed capability. Set the same OSPF cost on the router
interfaces both ends.

This is logically the same thing as putting two routers next to each other
in a test lab environment, and running two patch cables between them in an
OSPF area 0, equal cost path configuration.



On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 2:58 PM, Eric Kuhnke  wrote:

> You should not be extending layer 2 switch fabrics over PTP microwave.
>
> One router at each site.
>
> Each router gets a /32 OSPF loopback address.
>
> One OSPF /30 per radio link.
>
> The only MAC addresses that should exist on the radio link (which is
> itself a L2 bridge) are the single MACs for the router interfaces on each
> end.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 12:50 PM, Ty Featherling 
> wrote:
>
>> I have my network setup with a common bridge (bridgeWAN) setup on each
>> router in an area. The backhaul in goes into this bridge and any backhauls
>> to further sites do as well. OSPF sorts out the default path and the bridge
>> gets them there in one IP hop. I have a major site that I am added a second
>> backhaul link to the upstream direction today (Airfiber 5x multiplexer for
>> the win). I am trying to figure out how to bond these two backhauls from
>> bridgeWAN on router A to bridgeWAN on router B. Any way to share the load
>> across those links would be great. If I just plug them in spanning tree
>> shuts one down. The real kink in the works may be that they have different
>> capacities. What can I do?
>>
>>
>> -Ty
>>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Mirotik help - dual backhauls and bridges

[Eric Kuhnke]

You should not be extending layer 2 switch fabrics over PTP microwave.

One router at each site.

Each router gets a /32 OSPF loopback address.

One OSPF /30 per radio link.

The only MAC addresses that should exist on the radio link (which is itself
a L2 bridge) are the single MACs for the router interfaces on each end.



On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 12:50 PM, Ty Featherling 
wrote:

> I have my network setup with a common bridge (bridgeWAN) setup on each
> router in an area. The backhaul in goes into this bridge and any backhauls
> to further sites do as well. OSPF sorts out the default path and the bridge
> gets them there in one IP hop. I have a major site that I am added a second
> backhaul link to the upstream direction today (Airfiber 5x multiplexer for
> the win). I am trying to figure out how to bond these two backhauls from
> bridgeWAN on router A to bridgeWAN on router B. Any way to share the load
> across those links would be great. If I just plug them in spanning tree
> shuts one down. The real kink in the works may be that they have different
> capacities. What can I do?
>
>
> -Ty
>

Re: [AFMUG] Mirotik help - dual backhauls and bridges

[Josh Reynolds]

ECMP

On Dec 30, 2016 2:50 PM, "Ty Featherling"  wrote:

> I have my network setup with a common bridge (bridgeWAN) setup on each
> router in an area. The backhaul in goes into this bridge and any backhauls
> to further sites do as well. OSPF sorts out the default path and the bridge
> gets them there in one IP hop. I have a major site that I am added a second
> backhaul link to the upstream direction today (Airfiber 5x multiplexer for
> the win). I am trying to figure out how to bond these two backhauls from
> bridgeWAN on router A to bridgeWAN on router B. Any way to share the load
> across those links would be great. If I just plug them in spanning tree
> shuts one down. The real kink in the works may be that they have different
> capacities. What can I do?
>
>
> -Ty
>

[AFMUG] Mirotik help - dual backhauls and bridges

[Ty Featherling]

I have my network setup with a common bridge (bridgeWAN) setup on each
router in an area. The backhaul in goes into this bridge and any backhauls
to further sites do as well. OSPF sorts out the default path and the bridge
gets them there in one IP hop. I have a major site that I am added a second
backhaul link to the upstream direction today (Airfiber 5x multiplexer for
the win). I am trying to figure out how to bond these two backhauls from
bridgeWAN on router A to bridgeWAN on router B. Any way to share the load
across those links would be great. If I just plug them in spanning tree
shuts one down. The real kink in the works may be that they have different
capacities. What can I do?


-Ty