Yes I thought about that but it certainly seems a bit messy ☹
Back to the drawing board I guess.
Regards
Michael Knill
On 13/10/18, 6:47 am, "Lonnie Abelbeck" wrote:
Michael,
It appears the "DEFAULTROUTE=yes" is set to the pppoe.conf in our network
script ... you don't want to be
Michael,
It appears the "DEFAULTROUTE=yes" is set to the pppoe.conf in our network
script ... you don't want to be messing with that.
> Do I have any other options?
Make the PPPoE as the primary link and the other as the EXT2IF link, add some
major routing to EXT2IF link.
Lonnie
> On Oct 1
Hmm that's a pity. The scenario is that I have a site where I believe I am
having voice issues on the primary link (static IP), so I have installed
another WAN service from a known working provider (PPPoE).
So I want to send all traffic out the primary and send the voice traffic only
out the bac
Hi Michael,
> However after doing this, it allocated ppp0 as the default route even though
> it was showing as EXT2IF and eth0 as EXTIF.
Yes, I can see that happening.
Possibly we need to edit that WiKi section.
https://doc.astlinux-project.org/userdoc:tt_wan_failover#pppoe_on_failover_interfac
And the other question is what I set the WAN Failover Tab -> Connection Type:
to? DHCP?
Regards
Michael Knill
From: Michael Knill
Reply-To: AstLinux List
Date: Friday, 12 October 2018 at 6:20 pm
To: AstLinux List
Subject: [Astlinux-users] WAN Failover and PPPoE
Hi Group
As per the WAN Failo
Hi Lonnie
I guess I wanted to highlight the gotcha that if you are using PPPoE, any ip
route commands will fail in the wan-failover.script when it is down.
For example, my script initially was used to force my provider out the Primary
interface only so it would be UNREACHABLE and the backup tru
> On Oct 1, 2018, at 10:38 PM, Michael Knill
> wrote:
>
> Hi all
>
> Just a bit of a problem I would like to highlight with the Wan Failover
> script.
> The passed interface parameters assume a fixed interface rather than a
> dynamic one e.g. ppp0 so it fails.
>
> So when the primary ha
Thanks Lonnie. I have now learned something else!
Regards
Michael Knill
On 24/7/18, 10:31 pm, "Lonnie Abelbeck" wrote:
> Actually I can just add this in my routing table startup script as this
route will not go anywhere else.
No, if your primary external interface is DHCP (client
> Actually I can just add this in my routing table startup script as this route
> will not go anywhere else.
No, if your primary external interface is DHCP (client), you should use the
/mnt/kd/wan-failover.script .
If the DHCP (client) address changes the interface is flushed, which destroys
a
Cool thanks Lonnie. Actually I can just add this in my routing table startup
script as this route will not go anywhere else.
I thought there was something a little more tricky at work!
Regards
Michael Knill
On 24/7/18, 12:53 am, "Lonnie Abelbeck" wrote:
> On Jul 23, 2018, at 3:07 AM
> On Jul 23, 2018, at 3:07 AM, Michael Knill
> wrote:
>
> Hi Group
>
> Is there any way to configure a static route for the primary interface e.g. a
> route which will not fail over to the secondary?
> I basically do not want to access my VoIP Provider on the secondary interface
> e.g. it
Hi Group
I just have to say that in testing the WAN Failover solution it seems to be
working excellently.
My setup is a little different in that I have configured the DR server as a
backup voice transit node with SIP Trunks to all backed up sites. When failed
over, incoming calls use a dedicat
Hi Michael,
> Im just wondering whether there was any advantage in forcing the VPN to be
> across the 4G connection all the time?
I started out with the WireGuard (WG) VPN over 4G connection all the time ...
the LTE IP address was less dynamic, usually stayed with the same address, and
if your
Hi Lonnie
Im just wondering whether there was any advantage in forcing the VPN to be
across the 4G connection all the time?
I set it up so it uses the Primary WAN under normal circumstances and it then
re-establishes when it fails over to the 4G connection. It takes about a second
or less to re
Just wanted to add some observations of my own. Like Lonnie I have been
testing WAN failover using the Netgear LB1121 and it is working well.
I did run into one quirk though which is when using bridge mode in the
LB1121 I was getting unreliable connections when switching to test
failover. On inv
I have now more completely tested my WAN Failover using 4G/LTE over WireGuard
...and now works perfectly with Asterisk with a configuration change.
My 4G/LTE over WireGuard tunnel endpoint is with AstLinux on a Linode KVM (as
documented previously). The AstLinux on the Linode KVM instance is no
I decided today the architecture I want to test.
I will be setting up a DR Astlinux box running Asterisk and having a SIP Trunk
with a 100 Block number range on it for indial.
All Astklinux boxes configured for failover will establish a VPN to this box
and a SIP Trunk to the DR server will be sec
Hey Michael,
Currently my "cloud" AstLinux Linode KVM (4G/LTE over VPN endpoint) has
Asterisk disabled, ASTERISK_DAHDI_DISABLE="yes" so when my main AstLinux box
goes to failover the SIP packets originate from my "home" WireGuard private
10.0.0.0/24 address and are NAT'ed at the Linode end. No
Michael,
Easy... up here in the US northeast we get storms that take out power and
network rather regularly. Where I live both are delivered by overhead
wires and a tree down takes out power and internet. We just got hit by a
storm two weeks ago that cut service to over 100,000 customers in ove
Hi Lonnie
So what are you trying to solve with Asterisk failover?
Regards
Michael Knill
On 28/5/18, 10:00 pm, "Lonnie Abelbeck" wrote:
Hi Michael,
Yes, you can use OpenVPN and WireGuard at the same time, no problem. I do.
WireGuard is much faster / more efficient than O
Hi Michael,
Yes, you can use OpenVPN and WireGuard at the same time, no problem. I do.
WireGuard is much faster / more efficient than OpenVPN, mostly since it resides
in the kernel and can use multiple cores. Here are some benchmarks I posted to
the WireGuard mailing list:
https://lists.zx2c
No it will only be Linux to Linux!
Regards
Michael Knill
On 28/5/18, 8:13 pm, "Michael Keuter" wrote:
Sent from a mobile device.
Michael Keuter
> Am 28.05.2018 um 12:03 schrieb Michael Knill
:
>
> Hi group
>
> Im ready to do some testing.
> I ha
Sent from a mobile device.
Michael Keuter
> Am 28.05.2018 um 12:03 schrieb Michael Knill
> :
>
> Hi group
>
> Im ready to do some testing.
> I have a number of sites that are set up as OpenVPN Servers.
It depends what for the VPN is needed. By now Wireguard works only Linux to
Linux.
So, n
Hi group
Im ready to do some testing.
I have a number of sites that are set up as OpenVPN Servers. Should there be
any issues using Wireguard as well?
PS I just looked up Wireguard and I cant believe the difference in benchmarks
to Open VPN. That's crazy!
Regards
Michael Knill
On 24/5/18, 9:2
Thanks Lonnie. I don't have a specific scenario yet but handy to know its
possible.
Regards
Michael Knill
On 24/5/18, 8:54 am, "Lonnie Abelbeck" wrote:
Michael,
> So are you saying that you can configure a second external interface and
the associated routing to it with the Failo
Michael,
> So are you saying that you can configure a second external interface and the
> associated routing to it with the Failover Tab but just leave Failover
> disabled?
Yes, "External Failover Destination Routes:" automatically defines static
routes, automatically removed and added for DHC
Hi Lonnie
So are you saying that you can configure a second external interface and the
associated routing to it with the Failover Tab but just leave Failover disabled?
If so, I assume it uses the same EXT firewall rules?
Regards
Michael Knill
On 22/5/18, 8:59 am, "Lonnie Abelbeck" wrote:
First, I want to add to my Netgear LB1121 review. I tried to enable native
4G/LTE IPv6 support ... enabled IPv4v6 and IPv6 in the APN entry and tried
DHCPv6-client (dhcp6c) as well as Router Advertisements and I saw nothing. So
it could be the T-Mobile GSM tower in my area does not support IPv
So, a couple of observations and questions...
I was looking at my iPhone which has AT&T. As reported by Lonnie my device
is getting allocated a 10 dot private IPv4 address. If I go to a website
to discover my public IP address I see the NAT host address
107.77.x.y. However what is interesti
Hi Michael,
> I noticed you also pass the VPN traffic to the site LAN
Yes, I tried to implement the general case, easy to remove stuff.
> the VPN would normally just be used for voice traffic and management only.
In that case "External Failover Destination Routes: IPv4 Routes:" could define
al
Thanks Lonnie you beat me to it.
Interestingly one of my partners is using Asterisk as their Softswitch and they
were thinking of setting up a single VPN Tunnel to the SoftSwitch for voice
traffic and so everything still works on both the primary and failover links.
There should be no failover s
On 5/7/2015 8:57 AM, Michael Keuter wrote:
> Am 07.05.2015 um 14:29 schrieb Dan Ryson :
>
>> AstLinux Developers and Users:
>>
>> Last weekend, I installed an additional NIC and configured the "new" WAN
>> Failover in AstLinux. Testing revealed that everything worked.
>>
>> This morning, we had an
Am 07.05.2015 um 14:29 schrieb Dan Ryson :
> AstLinux Developers and Users:
>
> Last weekend, I installed an additional NIC and configured the "new" WAN
> Failover in AstLinux. Testing revealed that everything worked.
>
> This morning, we had an actual outage and I got to watch it work.
>
>
33 matches
Mail list logo
