Results 1 to 7 of 7
  1. #1
    Untangler
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    37

    Default No traffic on WAN2 PPPOE connections

    Hi everyone,

    I have two WAN connections using PPPOE: (Configuration/Network/Interfaces

    WAN1:187.214.60.xxx/32 (Addressed, NAT traffic, tried both peer DNS and manual DNS)
    WAN2:189.141.67.xxx/32 (Addressed, NAT traffic, tried both peer DNS and manual DNS)

    Both connections are relatively stable, I normally see disconnections every few days or so. I initially set the Wan Balancer to 45/55 balance because WAN2 has a better physical connection and so is about 8Mb faster than WAN1, but this doesn't seem to make any difference as WAN2 only gets traffic when I disable WAN1, otherwise WAN2 gets no sessions, 0 bandwidth. I saw the post about WAN issues and the comment about /32 subnet not being right, but I'd really rather not double NAT my connection. Here's what my Dashboard/Network Layout shows:
    Screen Shot 2019-09-05 at 9.18.02 PM.png

    Update: From the routing table: (Ok, I know it's not a great idea to post my public IP's
    = IPv4 Table main =
    10.2.2.0/24 dev tun203 proto kernel scope link src 10.2.2.185
    10.2.2.1 dev tun203 scope link
    10.6.0.1 via 10.6.0.5 dev tun202
    10.6.0.5 dev tun202 scope link
    100.64.16.0/21 dev tun200 proto kernel scope link src 100.64.16.2
    100.64.16.1 dev tun200 scope link
    172.16.2.0/24 dev eth1.51 proto kernel scope link src 172.16.2.1
    172.16.3.0/24 dev eth1.52 proto kernel scope link src 172.16.3.1
    172.16.5.0/24 dev eth1.53 proto kernel scope link src 172.16.5.1
    192.0.2.0/30 dev br.lxc proto kernel scope link src 192.0.2.1
    192.0.2.200/30 dev utun proto kernel scope link src 192.0.2.200
    192.168.15.0/24 dev eth1 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.15.1
    192.168.50.0/24 via 10.6.0.5 dev tun202
    200.38.193.226 dev ppp1 scope link
    200.38.193.226 dev ppp1 proto kernel scope link src 189.141.67.xxx #(WAN2 IP)

    = IPv4 Table balance =
    default via 200.38.193.226 dev ppp0

    = IPv4 Table uplink.3 =
    default via 200.38.193.226 dev ppp0

    = IPv4 Table uplink.4 =
    default via 200.38.193.226 dev ppp1

    So does this mean that both WAN's share a common gateway, and therefore won't play together on UT? I've never had a problem with another router in dual wan like this.
    Last edited by junglechuck; 09-05-2019 at 09:04 PM.

  2. #2
    Untangle Ninja
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,283

    Default

    someone from untangle can say for sure, but I'd hazard a guess that you are correct that the common gateway is the issue. If both WANs have the same next hop, then how can traffic be routed to one or the other? WAN Balancer is doing it's job, sending 45% of the traffic to the next hop for WAN1 and 55% of the traffic to the next hop for WAN2. But with both hops being the same, the next layer sends all the traffic out WAN1 because that's the first interface which can reach that route.
    maybe you can get your ISP to give you a couple of static /30 subnets routed by the pppoe modems. otherwise I don't see how this can work.

  3. #3
    Untangler
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    37

    Default

    @johnsonx42, Thanks for the confirmation. I understand the gateway issue from the routing table, but how then do other "WAN balancing" routers accomplish this without a problem? There are now many manufacturers- at both consumer and enterprise levels that have routers that can load balance and even aggregate multiple connections from the same ISP using the same gateway (I've used a few of them successfully). While, I feel like this is going backwards instead of forwards (feels like the days when I used Tomato), there should be a WAN script that would sort this out, but that's beyond my experience for now.

  4. #4
    Untangle Ninja
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,283

    Default

    I guess it depends on how they do their magic. the way I understand it Untangle does it by manipulating the routing so that traffic is routed to the gateway for one interface or the other, which naturally forces the traffic to transit the correct interface. this seems to be confirmed by what you are seeing, it breaks because the gateways are the same. other devices can do things in a different way where traffic is actually forced to a particular interface at which point it won't matter if the gateway is the same.

    I'm trying to think up a way to create a set of false interfaces that untangle can push traffic through which eventually connect to the real interfaces. You could probably do it with a 2nd router in between the Untangle and the 2nd PPPOE device (the 2nd router could even be another untangle, or a Linksys running Untangle SD-WAN Router). So the Untangle would do NAT and PPPOE for the primary connection, and let the other router do NAT and PPPOE for the secondary connection which would still connect to the Untangle as a WAN interface, but with a static private IP and NAT disabled (so no double-NAT). Might be a gotcha there though, haven't thought it all the way through.

  5. #5
    Untangle Ninja
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,283

    Default

    on another thought-path, have you talked to your ISP? perhaps they can put your second connection into a different dsl server or whatever it'd be called on their side ("redback" perhaps?), so it would have a different gateway? or maybe there's a different gateway IP you could assign manually? because of the way PPPOE works, it's a point-to-point tunnel bridge, there could be any number of valid gateways on the other side.
    Last edited by johnsonx42; 09-07-2019 at 03:32 PM.

  6. #6
    Untangler
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    37

    Default

    @johnsonx42, Thank you for your replies. I like the idea of setting up false interfaces, as it would enable multiple WAN connections with the same gw, but I have no idea where to start on that one.

    Regarding the addition of another router, I currently have one of my Vigor130's is handling one of my PPPOE WAN connections (dual-NAT of course), which I set up reluctantly- thus the UT thinks that one GW is 192.168.110.1 instead of the real public one. I'm trying to restrain my network insanity- I did have a Peplink Balance->USG-4_UT (Peplink router for WAN aggregation, followed by USG-4P, then UT in bridge mode), but this seemed like insanity.

    Your idea of assigning a different gateway manually is probably the best route, however it will be difficult obtain this info from my ISP, and I'm not sure how I would specify a gateway in the PPPOE setting of UT. In the DHCP and Static IP option for WAN there is a way to enter a "gateway override", but not in PPPOE. I do wish UT would fix this issue. UT is too great a UTM to not have multi-wan capacity in this way.

  7. #7
    Untangle Ninja
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,283

    Default

    yeah, I hadn't noticed there was no Gateway Override for PPPOE... I just ASSumed it was the same as the DHCP config. I only used direct PPPOE with Untangle once, it was years ago and probably on the old 9.x version.

    Assuming the Vigor130 lets you set static routes, you can disable NAT on Untangle for that connection and add static routes to the Vigor130 for the IP subnets on the LAN side of the untangle. Then at least you won't have double-NAT.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2