I have 6 WAN LANs I'm thinking of Using the PCC with VRRP

Router 1 - PCC with 3 WAN Lines , Active + Passive
Router 2 - PCC with 3 WAN Lines , Active + Passive

so both will work together? Any advice if this combination is bad? I''m looking for maximum speed and efficiency to squeeze the WAN lines i have

Any advice will be really appreciated regarding this matter.

Thanks.
Yuuki

That can only work if the VRRP implementation supports load-sharing. I don't know if Mikrotiks implementation supports that.

I have 6 WAN LANs I'm thinking of Using the PCC with VRRP

Router 1 - PCC with 3 WAN Lines , Active + Passive
Router 2 - PCC with 3 WAN Lines , Active + Passive

so both will work together? Any advice if this combination is bad? I''m looking for maximum speed and efficiency to squeeze the WAN lines i have

Any advice will be really appreciated regarding this matter.

Thanks.
Yuuki

Hi Yuuki,

VRRP in Mikrotik is only active/slave, so no load balancing between the 2 VRRP interfaces.

If you have multiple internal LAN's (that reach for different gateways) you could manually load balance by having half the gateways on router 1 and half on router 2 to utilise all 6 WANs, then have VRRP fail all gateways over to one router in event of router failure.

That can only work if the VRRP implementation supports load-sharing. I don't know if Mikrotiks implementation supports that.

Thanks onno! while digging on the web and with much reading found out that Mikortik does support Load-Sharing on VRRP, Thanks for raising this awareness, I wasn't too sure myself if it supports, I be sure to explore this further.

http://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Manual:VR ... ad_sharing

Hi Yuuki,

VRRP in Mikrotik is only active/slave, so no load balancing between the 2 VRRP interfaces.

If you have multiple internal LAN's (that reach for different gateways) you could manually load balance by having half the gateways on router 1 and half on router 2 to utilise all 6 WANs, then have VRRP fail all gateways over to one router in event of router failure.

Thanks joe! for your comment on this, This can be another approach to the deployment, but VRRP does load-sharing perhaps it's different from load-balancing? Please advice and Any pit hole or Disadvantage that you can see for this deployment that requires changing? I want the core routers to be fail proof with high uptime.

Thanks
Yuuki

Thanks joe! for your comment on this, This can be another approach to the deployment, but VRRP does load-sharing perhaps it's different from load-balancing? Please advice and Any pit hole or Disadvantage that you can see for this deployment that requires changing? I want the core routers to be fail proof with high uptime.

Thanks
Yuuki

Kind of - the example given for 'load sharing' is basically what I said, have multiple gateway VRRP IP's and have each active master on different router. It is not a single gateway IP doing proper load sharing (i.e. this connection goes to R1 next connection goes to R2 etc).

Kind of - the example given for 'load sharing' is basically what I said, have multiple gateway VRRP IP's and have each active master on different router. It is not a single gateway IP doing proper load sharing (i.e. this connection goes to R1 next connection goes to R2 etc).

Thanks man! I getting clearer on what i need to do now, I'm now testing out the PCC already, but I'm facing some issue here's the thread, if you have experience in PCC maybe can help me out?

http://forum.mikrotik.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=84582