how does one do that in mikrotik? On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 9:48 AM, [email protected] < [email protected]> 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 <[email protected] > > 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 <[email protected]> >> 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 >>> <https://maps.google.com/?q=7266+SW+48+Street+Miami,+FL+33155&entry=gmail&source=g> >>> Miami, FL 33155 >>> <https://maps.google.com/?q=7266+SW+48+Street+Miami,+FL+33155&entry=gmail&source=g> >>> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 <(305)%20663-5518> >>> >>> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 <(305)%20663-5518> Option 2 or Email: >>> [email protected] >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> *From: *"Steve Jones" <[email protected]> >>> *To: *[email protected] >>> *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 <[email protected]> >>> 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? >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
