That is what we are using here. We have set "Packet Loss" as the "Trigger Level" in the gateway group. The default setting--"Member Down"--seems to miss most outages.
We are using a DNS server as well, although we are using one further upstream from our ISP. We had a situation where we could ping our ISPs gateway--which is a concentrator in a field--but there was a fiber cut upstream. Rob ----- Original Message ----- From: "David QuayCendre" <[email protected]> To: "pfSense support and discussion" <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 7:35:53 AM Subject: Re: [pfSense] Dual-WAN Failover Hello, What is you configuration for the gateway ? Personally I select pack lost detection, and the test IP is the DNS of my ISP. So when the internet is down, the gateway is disable. If you want I can check my configuration this night, I have test this, but now I'm on 5 boxes with Tier 1. David 2013/4/10 Robert Fuller < [email protected] > Did you create outbound NAT rules for both WAN interfaces? Did you set the gateway to the failover group for the inbound pass rules on the LAN interface? Have you checked the gateway statuses in the menu "Status->Gateways" to make sure pfSense really thinks one of the gateways is down? Rob ----- Original Message ----- From: "Denis Witt" < [email protected] > To: [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 5:10:41 AM Subject: [pfSense] Dual-WAN Failover Hi List, we have the following setup: 1. WAN1 => SDSL 6/6 MBit 2. WAN2 => VDSL 50/10 MBit 3. LAN We want to use WAN2 as Default-Gateway, for most of our traffic. WAN1 should only be used if WAN2 isn't available (failover). So we created a Gateway Group (failover): WAN1 = Tier 2 WAN2 = Tier 1 Also we created the following floating rule: Direction: out Interface: WAN1, WAN2 Proto : any Gateway : failover Everything works fine when both WANs are available. WAN2 is used as the preferred one. When one of the WANs goes down Internet is gone, so there is no failover... When we use Tier1 for both lines everything works fine (load balancing and failover) but we don't want to use load balancing. What are we missing? Thanks in advance. -- Best regards Denis Witt _______________________________________________ List mailing list [email protected] http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list _______________________________________________ List mailing list [email protected] http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list _______________________________________________ List mailing list [email protected] http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
_______________________________________________ List mailing list [email protected] http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
