OMADA Load Balance VS Policy Routing CONFLICT BUG

OMADA Load Balance VS Policy Routing CONFLICT BUG

OMADA Load Balance VS Policy Routing CONFLICT BUG
OMADA Load Balance VS Policy Routing CONFLICT BUG
2024-09-13 05:26:37 - last edited 2024-09-16 01:34:42
Model: ER8411   TL-ER6120   ER605 (TL-R605)  
Hardware Version: V1
Firmware Version: 1.2.2 Build 20240809 Rel.48592

Hello Everybody!!

 

I've faced with very mysterious and very annoying bug with 6120, 605 and 8411 routers ~5 years ago.

Config:

 

wan1 Dynamic IP

wan2 Dynamic IP

wan3 PPPoE

+pptp client interface

 

wan1, wan2 and wan3 Included into Load Balance

 

Policy Routing 30+ IP Ranges setuped to pptp client gateway as Priority

Examples of IP Ranges: 68.232.34.217/32 69.195.160.0/19 104.18.20.0-104.18.34.0 104.244.40.0/21 151.101.108.156/30 151.101.244.156/30 151.101.40.156/30 ...etc

 

From the first minutes everything works fine, but few time later (minutes, hours, days) some IPs from LAN are going to uses pptp client gateway AS DEFAULT! 

Tracert still works correct but all TCP 443 traffic looks to pass through pptp ONLY. such sites as Speedtest.net indicating access through pptp wan ip!

At the same time all other LAN IPs continuing works correct, 0.0.0.0/0 to wan1,2,3 via Load Balance and Policy Routing 30+ ranges through pptp.

 

I've tried to use WAN pptp client instead of pptp client from VPN menu. The same problem.

As I understand since some time of correct operation Load Balancing began to use pptp client interface as default for some LAN IPs. 

 

So I need help! Tracert can't detect the problem in the route. LAN IP that got the bug could found that all websites will show geo-location by pptp client location. Also traffic speed will be strongly reduced (my pptp is slow). Can anybody add 30 routes via Policy Routing to PPTP Client of PPTP WAN? +other NON-pptp interfaces to Load Balancing.

 

I solve the problem using Static Routing for the same IP ranges. But it is not so reliable as Policy.... ((

 

Best Regards.

  0      
  0      
#1
Options
1 Accepted Solution
Re:OMADA Load Balance VS Policy Routing CONFLICT BUG-Solution
2024-09-15 01:06:45 - last edited 2024-09-16 01:34:42

PRPBLEM SOLVED!

 

ALL_TRAFFIC ALL IPGROUP_ANY IPGROUP_ANY WAN/LAN4,WAN/LAN5,WAN/LAN6 Any Only

 

   

 

This route was added yesterday. Now all the traffic goes to Load Ballanced wan1,2,3,

30 additional IP ranges goes to VPN gateway by priority.

Recommended Solution
  1  
  1  
#3
Options
2 Reply
Re:OMADA Load Balance VS Policy Routing CONFLICT BUG-Solution
2024-09-15 01:06:45 - last edited 2024-09-16 01:34:42

PRPBLEM SOLVED!

 

ALL_TRAFFIC ALL IPGROUP_ANY IPGROUP_ANY WAN/LAN4,WAN/LAN5,WAN/LAN6 Any Only

 

   

 

This route was added yesterday. Now all the traffic goes to Load Ballanced wan1,2,3,

30 additional IP ranges goes to VPN gateway by priority.

Recommended Solution
  1  
  1  
#3
Options
Re:OMADA Load Balance VS Policy Routing CONFLICT BUG
2024-09-25 03:52:28

P.S. The "crutches" that I used to fix abnormal Load Ballancing + Policy Based Routing will not solve PBR efficiency SIDE EFFECT

I got issues from online gamers at abnormal disconnections. I found that using PBR is not compatible with ping-sensitive applications!

My old MRTG script making 4 pings per 5mins and I found that 1st ping via PBR is 130~500ms while other 3 pings = 3~4ms

In the case with Static Routing all 4 pings = 3~4ms

I considering that PBR algorithm much more complex and need to calculate additional routing rules...

So, unfortunately PBR was changed to Static Routing... (( SR much more faster...

 

 

I hope fw developers will add some optimization into PBR algorithm later.

 

  0  
  0  
#4
Options

Information

Helpful: 0

Views: 278

Replies: 2

Related Articles