FG 100d Multiple Wan PPPoE

Problem Resolved. Restarted FG and all connections worked correctly. Will the FG suffer at all using 4 80mb down/20mb up connections over pppoe

I don' t think that a 100D will even notice. PPPoE is not a ' chatty' protocol - except for the initial negotiations there are only some regular keepalive packets. And what is ~320 Mbit/s for an appliance like this...

Thanks Ede_pfau. Having it running the last few days its seems to be running fine apart from the priority of routing. Previously when using static/ip to modem/router priority was set on static route to default as the 1st connection. Then policy routes to send http/https via 2nd connection. New setup with 4 pppoe connections obtain ip/netmask and default gateway from the isp (all single static ip) with a distance of 10. currently no static routes have manually been set. On reboot I have noticed the gateway changes so unsure if I can even set a static gateway on a static route. Current Route View for Gateway Static 0.0.0.0/0 81.139.64.1 ppp2 10 0 Static 0.0.0.0/0 81.139.64.1 ppp1 10 0 Static 0.0.0.0/0 81.148.0.1 ppp3 10 0 Static 0.0.0.0/0 81.148.0.1 ppp4 10 0 Connected 81.139.64.1/32 0.0.0.0 ppp2 0 0 Connected 81.139.64.1/32 0.0.0.0 ppp1 0 0 Connected 81.148.0.1/32 0.0.0.0 ppp3 0 0 Connected 81.148.0.1/32 0.0.0.0 ppp4 0 0 With using the above http/https still uses connection 2 as the policy routes are still in place. Because there is no priority settings set for the gateway route all other connections to external is " load balanced" completely random port from different machines. Is there an alternative way to set the default route for anything not internal. I have attempted setting static routes, and disabled obtain gateway automatcially but it then prevented any connection to external and the routes did not appear in the monitor. Even after a reboot

Ehm, why change the ' automatic' setup of gateway addresses? Of course, if all default routes are equal you will have a (more or less) load balanced distribution of sessions over all 4 routes. This isn' t bad in itself. The option to receive the correct gateway address through the PPP protocol is quite helpful as you have noticed. Depending on the actual connection the gateway may vary. That' s why the protocol was made in such a way as to provide the address of the receiving end as well. Just to clarify: Policy Routes are a thing from the zombie world. They live between real routes which you can see in the Routing Monitor, and real policies which do not guide traffic but only control it. Policy Routes are always obeyed first, before the routing table is looked up. If I had to make a wish for a feature request it would be to add visibility of Policy Routes, probably in the Routing Monitor. One more caveat when experimenting with routing settings: only when processing the first packets of a NEW session the routing decision is made. No changes to routes have effects on existing sessions. If you experiment with routes be sure to kill all sessions before re-testing. (I can tell, having wasted lots of time without proper knowledge of that interaction.)

Hi Ede, Under normal circumstances I would totally agree regarding the " load balancing" effect. Sadly This is why I have 4 individual connections. My purpose for the 4 connections. 1. All outgoing connections for workstations and servers to the internet,(including email and dns) Email is on a different site. 2. http, ftp and https for all workstations and servers 3. VPN to 2 x satellite sites and soon to be remote client access 4. VPN to HQ As you can see the 3rd and 4th connections are high priority for VPN access, as I am using DFS Live to all sites. Regarding the fixing the gateway in static routes and setting priority to use number1 is there an alternative way to set the default route other than priority when creating a static route? Policy routes are used to simply send 21,80,443 via port 2

If the internet connections are on a dynamically assigned routes with distance 10 and vpn links are on a distance of 5. Can I simply set up a policy route to forward all other traffic with a distance of 8 without the gateway set incoming interface: lan source address: 192.168.2.0/255.255.255.0 destination address: 0.0.0.0/0.0.0.0 outgoing interface: wan1 gateway address: 0.0.0.0

No. Policy routes will be obeyed first, before a routing table lookup. With the config shown ALL traffic from the .2.0/24 network would be sent out via WAN1. Didn' t you intend to divert HTTP(S) traffic only? BTW: with Policy Routes, usually the gateway address is left blank. It suffices to specify the port/interface. I haven' t had to specify the gateway address yet but it might come in handy if you have to.

Ok. After typing the above message and having a look over this morning. Setting up the policy route like you said forwarded everything via wan1. Was soon reverted. I then tried setting a static route for all 4 connections. 0.0.0.0/0.0.0.0 port1 0.0.0.0 10 1 0.0.0.0/0.0.0.0 port1 0.0.0.0 10 2 0.0.0.0/0.0.0.0 port1 0.0.0.0 10 3 0.0.0.0/0.0.0.0 port1 0.0.0.0 10 4 Leaving it so the gateway was blank This did not affect the routing table. I then set them all to distance 9. They then all appeared in the routing table. But no internet was available by any connection. I have to admit I am a bit lost in this now.

hello bob, the original setup before removing the nat routers in front of the gateway was done using the priority setting on gateway. The new internet connections, the default gateway changes so I have to leave the interface as retrieving the gateway address. Heres my current routing table. the only static routes I have is for the vpn subnets the only policy routes I have is 80,21,443 via port 2

sorry edited above post to take on board what you suggest. I am unable to set static routes to the default gateway as it changes.