Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Ask Slashdot: Best Connect Scheme For a 2-ISP Household?

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the cut-the-blue-wire-no-the-red-wire-hmmm dept.

Networking 206

c_petras writes "I just had DSL installed (a 19,000 ft run — Woo Hoo!) to act as a backup to my regional WiFi connection. How should I configure my home network so I don't have to swap the cable from one ISP's router to the other to maintain a good connection? Is it as simple as getting another router and plugging the two ISPs in? Is there a more elegant solution that would not require the use of three separate boxes and associated wall warts?"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

What router/firewall? (0)

Kenja (541830) | more than 3 years ago | (#36766668)

This is the job of a good router/firewall, but without knowing what you're running there's no way to answer the question.

Re:What router/firewall? (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36766766)

Re:What router/firewall? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36766876)

Yet another Ask Slashdot that should have been Ask Google. Can we have just one Ask Slashdot that isn't a matter of doing the most basic research? Is that really so much to ask?

Yeah yeah I am disagreeing with the premise of the story so do your duty and down-mod me instead of telling me why I'm wrong, you automatons.

Re:What router/firewall? (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36766814)

He's not going to find that on his typical home router, which comes with one upstream port and one downstream subnet.

Albeit some have hidden capabilities: mine has the hardwired downstream subnet, the hardwired upstream port, and one wireless subnet that can mimic two (the secure wireless and the guest wireless). This is probably pretty typical for wireless routers right now.

But still, the second WAN port is not going to be there unless you shop around. Ala kazam: []

Re:What router/firewall? (1)

Kenja (541830) | more than 3 years ago | (#36766966)

Well its not a typical requirement. I use a Netscreen 25 which has four ports, each configurable as its own security zone (so you can have any mix of trusted and untrusted ports). Can get one for under 100 dollars via ebay.

The point was, we dont know what hardware he's running. If he's looking for hardware recommendations, that would be one thing. But its hard to tell from the article.

Re:What router/firewall? (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36767182)

He's got two bridges (one DSL and one for his regional WiFi) and some computers. The bridges presumably each have an ethernet port on his side of the box. He doesn't know how to connect the computers to the bridges so the thing just routes. Any dual-wan router will fit in that hole in his system. It's not so complicated that we need to know more.

What I did. (5, Informative)

grub (11606) | more than 3 years ago | (#36766676)

I did this a couple of years ago with DSL and cable. My choice was to use OpenBSD's Equal-Cost Multipath Routing [] . I've seen other hardware devices that accept two broadband connections but the OpenBSD option was much more elegant and allowed some good granularity in traffic control (ie.: traffic to my cable ISP's billing page may as well go through the cable connection)

I had a couple of lines in pf.conf as so:

table <route_cable> persist file "/etc/route_cable"
table <route_dsl> persist file "/etc/route_dsl"

then would force the network ranges/IPs contained through the appropriate interface.

I dumped the DSL about a year ago but this worked very well for me. YMMV. Mail me if you'd like more info/tips.

Re:What I did. (2)

grub (11606) | more than 3 years ago | (#36766758)

Oh I should note that this was pretty basic load sharing (I won't grace it with the term "load balancing") not failover.
A script would ping out through each interface and if one went down all traffic was rerouted out the other so failure of one link didn't botch things up.

Re:What I did. (4, Informative)

Bastardchyld (889185) | more than 3 years ago | (#36766990)

I recommend pfSense 2.0 RC3 to be specific. It has a new ability to use Multiple WANs, you can even weight them based on which has a better connectivity and balance traffic over both. Giving you load balancing and failover between both connections.

Re:What I did. (1)

grub (11606) | more than 3 years ago | (#36767064)

Ohh that sounds sweet (just did teh googlez on it) I don't think it had those features when I looked back when.

Re:What I did. (1)

CarsonChittom (2025388) | more than 3 years ago | (#36767024)

I did this a couple of years ago with DSL and cable.

I don't mean just to be nosy, but: why? I'm kind of honestly baffled that somebody would need more than one ISP at home (though I can see the reasoning in a business context, of course). What am I missing?

Re:What I did. (1)

grub (11606) | more than 3 years ago | (#36767126)

No problem asking: they were both business accounts. I was trying to keep a lot of the stuff in-house as I'm an admitted control-freak but decided to drop the DSL and do more on remote *nix boxes. The price is about the same and I get a full 100/100 Mbits on the remote ends.

Re:What I did. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36767166)


Re:What I did. (2)

CarsonChittom (2025388) | more than 3 years ago | (#36767372)

Right. What a helpful answer.

The question is, why would someone need that level of availability at home? At a business, if you have downtime, you lose money. At home, if you have downtime, you...have to watch TV instead?

Re:What I did. (1)

msauve (701917) | more than 3 years ago | (#36767798)

What if someone works at home, and needs a reliable connection to the corporate network? I'll let the boss know I'll be watching TV whenever the net goes down.

Re:What I did. (3, Informative)

pz (113803) | more than 3 years ago | (#36767306)

I'm not the highly informative poster above, but can readily speculate justifications nevertheless: (1) reliability, reliability, reliability, (2) cost differential between the two services during different times of the day or days of the week, (3) to maximize available bandwidth if one or the other connection bogs down from one's neighbor, (4) to be able to tell one or the other service to frell off on a moment's notice, (5) to be able to load down one ISP's connection, say with a large file transfer, and have the local network still remain responsive by automatically switching everything else to the other ISP, etc.

I've implemented a related, but certainly not identical, system in my home with two wireless APs running two independent networks feeding a single cable connection. Robustness was the primary motivation.

Re:What I did. (1)

v1 (525388) | more than 3 years ago | (#36767674)

I'm kind of honestly baffled that somebody would need more than one ISP at home

I run a variety of small services at my home, have done so for 15 yrs. Mail and web for example. I have DSL and cable. My DSL just recently upgraded to 1up/7down from 1up/1.5down (umm thanks for the DOWNstream bump... not), and the cable is now at 2up/25down. Obviously cable is the better performer, but it's also less reliable/consistent and doesn't offer static IP addresses. And my cable speeds can really dip badly during prime time when everyone is netflix'ing. DSL is fairly stable any time of the day.

Qwest's DSL in my area (read STATE) was down for over two entire weeks because the clowns built both of their regional NOCs 100ft from the same river. MediaCrap just goes down whenever a fly in Kenya farts, but it's always back up again in an hour or less. (usually happens early in the AM, guessing that's when they move their patch cables around? *shrug*) Neither of them are in any hurry to provide me with better upstream speeds or more reliable service, such is my fate in an area that lacks choices/competition.

Connect routers with a string of bitcoins (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36766678)

It's the Slashdot-approved solution.

Re:Connect routers with a string of bitcoins (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36767210)

I knew bitcoins really came from china. It explains the hole in the middle where the string goes.

PFsense (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36766702)

1. Setup a pfSense router/firewall
2. Configure Failover
3. ??

Re:PFsense (2)

yakatz (1176317) | more than 3 years ago | (#36766882)

I was about to write pfSense when I saw the parent post, so I will just second it.
I use it at home and at several of my clients, and one of those has dual WANs.

(Full disclosure: I have contributed (code, not money) to pfSense.)

Re:PFsense (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36767398)

Many people here know that Code takes Time
Everyone knows that Time is Money
Therefore: Code is Money!!!

Quick Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36766734)

Multi-WAN (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36766752)

Spend a few hundred bucks and get a multi-WAN router that will combine the connections. Peplink is good apparently:

PFSense is a great place to start (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36766786)

PFsense ( is a great open source multi-wan router. I currently run 3 separate incoming connections to my network with it flawlessly. Combine this with great VPN,load balancing, round robin connection, traffic shaping, and bandwidth monitoring and it is a fantastic easy to use tool.

Re:PFSense is a great place to start (2)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#36766908)

Note that with this setup you still have to manually reconnect persistent connections if one ISP goes down. If you need transparent fail-over, then things get a lot more complicated (and expensive!) because you'll need the same IP address (range) from both ISPs.

easy as...rocket science. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36766792)

sure, it's as easy as learning BGP routing..huh huh... Or there might be a router out there with two WAN ports, that you can give metrics to say which is the perferred network. But the only ones i know of are Cradlepoint routers for 4g/wired networks.

Re:easy as...rocket science. (2)

grub (11606) | more than 3 years ago | (#36766932)

Convince your home ISPs to play BGP with you... Good luck! :)

Pfsense (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36766812)

Pfsense is a great solution

Home Server (1)

muyla (1429487) | more than 3 years ago | (#36766836)

You can set up an old computer as a home server doing the balancing of the two connections, and you can even add some more functions to it (file server, vpn, etc).

A good distro for it is Zentyal, which is based on ubuntu and will let you config the whole thing over a web browser, just like one of those d-link routers.

pfSense (1)

gellenburg (61212) | more than 3 years ago | (#36766838)

My recommendation: pfSense.

Or ClearOS.

pfSense is FreeBSD based. ClearOS is linux-based.

Re:pfSense (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36766996)

I second this. Maybe add untangle...

dd-wrt (1)

mmmmbeer (107215) | more than 3 years ago | (#36766842)

If your router supports dd-wrt, it has this option built in. You may need more than one router for this. I've never tried it, but there's info about it here: []

Re:dd-wrt (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36767010)

DD-WRT was my first thought for something that could do this with out costing a fortune but Mesh Networking isn't even close to what the OP is asking about.


Re:dd-wrt (1)

skids (119237) | more than 3 years ago | (#36767302)

Most WRT-capable boxes will have one upstream port an a LAN port connected to a built-in switch. It should be possible to VLAN the switch in such a way as to peel off a single port to act as a second WAN port. However, a good amount of this hardware will boot up with the switch running open, and will not apply the VLANs until the bootloader initializes the switch. So it's not suitable if that moment of open bridging causes problems with the provider or you have high security

Also that would mean you'd be sharing the bandwidth of the built-in switch''s uplink port between LAN traffic going in and out of the hard ports, WAN traffic to the second ISP, and traffic between the LAN and WiFi. If you do not have any hardwired LAN, however, none of the above problems apply. You just have to tough it out to get past all the defaults trying to set the LAN port up as a LAN.

If you pick a unit with GE ports, sharing the bandwidth should not be a problem, but do take care to install anti-bufferbloat policing.

Expensive But Available (1)

erilane (787755) | more than 3 years ago | (#36766848)

There are companies that make routers with 2 WAN links. Health checks are run periodically (pinging a public DNS server or some other reliable IP through the link), and traffic is routed across your preferred link if it is up, or the backup if the preferred link is down. The one I'm familiar with is made by FortiNet and costs $500+ []

Re:Expensive But Available (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#36766958)

Wow, that's expensive. Something like a PC-Engines ALIX board with three LAN ports running pfSense provides the same functionality (complete with pointy-clicky web interface) at a quarter of the price. Installing pfSense is just a matter of writing the .img file to a CF card, so there's not even the argument that there's a cost saving in terms of time - it takes a lot longer to configure either system than it will take to install.

Re:Expensive But Available (1)

ryanov (193048) | more than 3 years ago | (#36767780)

Linksys RV082 is a cheaper alternative. I'm not 100% sure how the routing works, but it seems to me it accounted for downed links.

Untangle (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36766854)

Sounds like a job for untangle firewall and router

Re:Untangle (1)

jijacob (943393) | more than 3 years ago | (#36767136)

In order to get multiple wan balancing/failover you end up having to pay a subscription fee. No thanks.

Load Balancer.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36766864)

To do fail over or balance your Internet usage over two ISP links you would need a load balancer. ELFIQ is one such balancer that is reasonable priced. To get a Firewall appliance that can do the same you are looking at a much higher cost.

You may be able to set up the same sort of thing using a Linux box, but once you factor in the time to set things up you're better off with a load balancer appliance.

google: dual-wan router (1)

CityZen (464761) | more than 3 years ago | (#36766888)

What you might consider is a dual-wan router. It can replace your regular router and provide more connectivity options.
Unfortunately, for the low-end ones that I looked at, the options were limited:
1) fail-over mode. Normally use WAN-A until it dies, then use WAN-B.
2) dual-WAN mode. Client 1 goes to WAN-A, client 2 goes to WAN-B, client 3 goes to WAN-A, etc.

What you probably really want is a truly load-balanced mode, which requires either going higher-end, or rolling something yourself with a PC.

There are some hacks for dd-wrt and such to make a router dual-WAN, but that looked to be more bother than I wanted to go in for.

Ultimately, for me, I made one WAN connection pretty solid such that I didn't have to bother with all this.

RV042 (2)

Isarian (929683) | more than 3 years ago | (#36766902)

The "Cisco" RV042 ( supports this, by having two WAN Ethernet ports. Plug them both in and go. Relatively inexpensive at $180, sometimes you can find deals online for them. I say "Cisco" because I think the hardware is just rebranded "Linksys" gear from before the merger.

Re:RV042 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36767148)

Just want to add that the RV0x2 series are being end-of-lifed by Cisco and will not offer support of IPv6.

Re:RV042 (1)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 3 years ago | (#36767178)

Yeah, but he's only 4 miles from his TELCO. By the time IPv6 is rolled out, he'll have FTTH. ;-)

Re:RV042 (2)

Mr.Ziggy (536666) | more than 3 years ago | (#36767452)

I thought the RV042 was going to be the godsend product: relatively cheap for dual-wan support in small offices. Turns out it just sucks.

My *personal* suspicion is it is part of the constant Cisco screwups of everything Linksys, but that's a different conversation.

RV042's run HOT, break, don't auto-switch or auto-detect a network outage like they are supposed to. Installed a bunch in some offices and had to replace all of them.

DO NOT buy the RV042.

Peplink makes a good but expensive dual-wan router which does everything you want and more. It is a larger, more robust office size product with pricing to match. But very good.

Otherwise you are looking at a BSD/Linux roll your own solution. I haven't seen anything good and small with 3 ethernet ports embedded in.

Re:RV042 (1)

kevin_j_morse (1282350) | more than 3 years ago | (#36767746)

What hardware revision is it? When Cisco first bought Linksys they still sold the Linksys version for a while as a Cisco product. Now they have completely redone the product with a new processor, more memory, and new firmware. Like I mentioned in my previous post I used two of these at a company that I did some setup work for and have had no problems so far handling around 100,000 front page views a month on three servers.

I admit I was hesitant about the Linksys nature of the product but they are so cheap if you're really concerned just buy two.

I agree, wholeheartedly, from experience (1)

BenEnglishAtHome (449670) | more than 3 years ago | (#36767756)

I had the Cisco/Linksys and experienced endless frustration. I wound up replacing it with a Draytek Vigor 2930N. The 2930 works great and provides integrated wireless, to boot. Love it.

More info. []

Re:RV042 (1)

kevin_j_morse (1282350) | more than 3 years ago | (#36767472)

I would second this. Although the hardware is rebranded Linksys the firmware is completely redesigned by Cisco. I'm using two of these to run a bunch of web and mail servers and they're performing quite well.

I remember when Slashdot was good. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36766904)

Now it's Slashdot - news for noobs, and even more noobish questions.

ZeroShell (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36766914)

Setup a three+ NIC box and install ZeroShell [] . It supports Multi-WAN uplinks with QoS, failover, and load balancing.

Get a dual-wan router (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36766922)

Buy a Draytek dual-WAN router. In Canada they are available via here :

They ship to the US.

One odd solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36766944)

2 NATs in one rig. Typically this means 1 $5 PCI Etherent card. You really should be more descriptive of your needs, otherwise you're going to get vague useless information.

Linksys RV082 does this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36766946)

It is an older router, should be cheap on ebay. I've been using one for 8 years now with very few problems.

Pricey but works... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36766964)

I do this for clients frequently, generally cable/fios or cable/dsl depending on what's available. Sonicwalls do a great job as far as load balancing/failover and ease of setup (initial setup wizard allows you to configure dual wan ports). On the pricey side but they work.

Multi wan router (1)

prichardson (603676) | more than 3 years ago | (#36766986)

When I google 'multi wan router' (I assume you didn't get that far), Peplink [] is the first result. They seem pretty legit, but I don't have any of their products. They even have one that can connect to wifi networks and ethernet for internet connectivity, which seems right up your alley.

As far as I know, just linking to routers together will not work. Your computer can only have 1 gateway (where it looks for the real internet). Maybe there's custom firmware that allows load-balancing with another router, but I doubt it.

Re:Multi wan router (2)

HKcastaway (985110) | more than 3 years ago | (#36767220)

I've used PEPlink and they are good.... Recommend them, service was good, though they did bring me one which had a hardware problem.

They have some pretty good load balancing policies, but there was some wacky idea I had which it wouldn't do.

  If someone is looking for clever inbound traffic balancing without BGP google that in week or so... actually it is something similar to my DNS racing... (sorry my blog is currently down).

Re:Multi wan router (1)

HKcastaway (985110) | more than 3 years ago | (#36767254)

sorry I accidental paste. Google DNS racing... i will get my blog up,

shorewall (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36767050)

This will do the trick...

Netgear Dual-Wan (1)

malachid69 (306291) | more than 3 years ago | (#36767058)

I used a Netgear Dual-WAN for years. It allows you to specify (via the web-interface) which traffic goes over which network.

Small office firewalls (1)

HikingStick (878216) | more than 3 years ago | (#36767060)

Some inexpensive small office firewall appliances support multiple external network connections, and can automatically move traffic to the secondary connection if the primary goes bye-bye. I believe one such device was a Multi-Tech SOHO firewall. There are like a lot of them out there.

pfsense (1)

juggler314 (556575) | more than 3 years ago | (#36767062)

If you can spare/build/whatever a machcine (and really it could probably be anything from the last decade), download pfsense [] , the installer pretty much works, the how-to's are very detailed. It's a mature stable product. It'll let you load balance your outbound connections as well as do everything a modern firewall does (you might, for instance, find being able to setup VPN on the box highly useful).

If you don't know anything about networking it might be a bit daunting, but probably still within the realm of possibility given it's all gui based and the docs are detailed.

Use Linux (1)

Vrtigo1 (1303147) | more than 3 years ago | (#36767078)

While there are products that do this (dual WAN firewalls, etc) none of them are particularly great. If it were me, I'd repurpose an old PC, or a dedicated board such as a Soekris 4501 ( and roll your own. It should be pretty simple to do it with iptables and a few bash scripts. Off the top of my head, I'd do something like ping a device a few hops upstream on each providers network every 60 seconds or so, if the device isn't responding, then failover and use another script to failback when the device is reachable again.

Using linux would to incorporate traffic monitoring, QoS, etc and even a file/web/dns server if you want to. In short, the linux route keeps you from getting locked in to a proprietary system that may not meet all your needs. There's load of documentation on doing stuff like this available online, so you don't even really need any prior linux experience as long as you have a will to learn.

Re:Use Linux (1)

hawguy (1600213) | more than 3 years ago | (#36767484)

While there are products that do this (dual WAN firewalls, etc) none of them are particularly great. If it were me, I'd repurpose an old PC, or a dedicated board such as a Soekris 4501

Before you repurpose a PC for something that can be done by a lightweight appliance, keep in mind the power costs.

A PC that uses 100 watts will cost around $130/year in power (in California @ $.15/KWh). Use that Soekris board (at 10W w/o disk) and you save $117/year, so it will pay for itself in less than 2 years.

SYSWAN Duolinks SW24 router (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36767080)

I am doing this myself right now using a SYSWAN Duolinks SW24 router. (The other solution I looked at (but was unfortunately out of my price range) was the Peplink Balance.) It works well, with two potential gotchas.

First, it doesn't provide link-bonding (or whatever the appropriate term is). That is, it cannot *combine* the bandwidth of the two links, but if you start downloading one file, then start a second download, (most of the time) the first download will use one connection and the second will use the other. I have two equal-bandwidth/equal-ping connections so it doesn't matter which is used. It won't download *one* file twice as fast. (It could possibly bond the two links together if you used a fancy bonding VPN endpoint somewhere, but I doubt that is what you're looking to do.)

The second gotcha has to do with dynamic DNS providers. I can control the inbound port mapping of only one of my Internet connections (WAN 1). I have port 80 (for example) on my DSL pointed at my home server. I'm using to keep a hostname mapped to my ever changing IP address. The Duolinks will update dyndns whenever any connection change occurs, instead of only when the IP changes on WAN 1. When it changed my dynamic hostname to my second (un-portmapped) internet connection, I couldn't get to my home machine via the hostname anymore when at the office.

Works well, pretty rock solid.

Vyatta (1)

Ortle (1555195) | more than 3 years ago | (#36767088)

Check out Vyatta.. they have an appliance or it can be run on a computer/VM. They have a commercial version and a community version.

Turnkey method (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36767100)

Buy a little router from Mikrotik. Fat Swiss army knife of packet slicing and dicing, easy to use.

HSRP (1)

barfcat (1741432) | more than 3 years ago | (#36767120)

It seems like what you are looking for is HSRP. You have routing set up to where if the primary service goes down, the route dies and fails over to a secondary connection. I used to set this up all the time at the NSP I worked for and it was very simple. VRRP is even easier but it is Cisco proprietary and probably wouldn't fit your needs.

Re:HSRP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36767374)

It seems like what you are looking for is HSRP. You have routing set up to where if the primary service goes down, the route dies and fails over to a secondary connection. I used to set this up all the time at the NSP I worked for and it was very simple. VRRP is even easier but it is Cisco proprietary and probably wouldn't fit your needs.

Instead of HSRP / VRRP, just use OpenBSD's CARP... for some great info... ifstated in OpenBSD can be handy for this too.

Re:HSRP (1)

dlb (17444) | more than 3 years ago | (#36767456)

You got that backwards.

Since you have money to blow (1)

dlb (17444) | more than 3 years ago | (#36767140)

Use what the grown-ups use.

Go buy yourself a Juniper SSG 20 [] with the optional xDSL module, and let the firewall take care of the failover for you.


Untangle (1)

HockeyPUcX (791205) | more than 3 years ago | (#36767180)

Untangle ( may be a good option. It is relatively inexpensive and has WAN failover and load balancing capabilities with an easy to use UI if you don't want to go the 'roll your own' route.

Mikrotik (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36767214)

A Mikrotik RB750 can be configured to do this with no problem. $40

Sonicwall (1)

Custard (45810) | more than 3 years ago | (#36767226)

Since you are asking on slashdot, I am going to assume that you are geeky, but not a network person.

If you were a network person, as I am, then building a little box to route would be easy. That is what I would do. If you have more time than money, then I heartily recommend that option. There is plenty of software that will work.

Assuming that you are not a BSD/linux routing jockey, then you should look at a SonicWall or similar firewall. There are TZ100s used on eBay for less than $150. The configuration is through a simple web interface and has wizards. There are other brands, and SonicWall is quite mediocre, but I have the most familiarity with them.

Router with 2 WAN ports (0)

nine-times (778537) | more than 3 years ago | (#36767232)

Basically, you need a router with 2 WAN ports and the ability to configure failover. I don't have a good recommendation, because it's a feature that generally isn't available in consumer-grade gear. Expect to spend a couple hundred dollars.

And that's just for failover. Load balancing is more complicated and often doesn't work out as well as people hope.

Re:Router with 2 WAN ports (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 3 years ago | (#36767476)

My SonicWALL has this feature.

VRRP (Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol) (1)

microcentillion (942039) | more than 3 years ago | (#36767250)

VRRP was created for exactly this.

Re:VRRP (Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36767442)

Uh, no, it wasn't.

no DSL, but WiFi? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36767290)

Pardon my ignorance, but you have WiFi (as in IEEE 802.11XX?, a.k.a. WLAN?) available, but for DSL you needed 6 km of cable?

WHERE on this planet do you live?? (or am I prejudiced when assuming you are on this planet?)

dualwanguide with a ddwrt (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36767312)

Ubuntu based dual-wan routing (1)

ka9dgx (72702) | more than 3 years ago | (#36767322)

I found myself in this same position a number of years ago, I've settled on using ubuntu linux, iproute2, and iptables, it's not easy to get working right, especially when you have DSL instead of a nice normal IP based connection (I will forever hate PPPoE)

The mental gymnastics of tracking ip connections across two separate routing tables in the same box will give you a few headaches, especially when a packet which comes in through the DSL heads back out the WiFi interface for no apparent reason... it's definitely not easy to get working. PPPoE imposed by our new DSL vendor added a new level of hell once we moved.

If you can find a piece of hardware which works well for less than a weeks worth of your time and effort, that has good reviews, and supports PPPoE, buy it, and don't look back.

Excuse my extreme ignorance (0)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 3 years ago | (#36767350)

By why is this an 'Ask Slashdot'. This seems like a very straight-forward question that doesn't require opinion to answer. I am not even sure if there are multiple answers. This is one that truly can be answered with a simple Google search. Am I missing something?

Draytek Vigor (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36767362)

Try a draytek vigor

pfSense on an appliance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36767370)

I use a Soekris Net 5501 running pfSense to do this. The thing is bulletproof.

You can configure pfSense to use both WAN connections in a round robin arrangement. Alternatively you can set up a failover configuration where pfSense uses only the faster, higher-bandwidth connection; if that connection fails, traffic is diverted to the "backup" ISP.


Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36767390)

Buy this.

Game, Set, Match.

Multiple WAN port solutions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36767396)

Netgear FVX538 and Netgear SRX5308.
Multiple WAN ports with load balancing and auto-failover.

dual wan router (-1, Flamebait)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 3 years ago | (#36767426)

Fucking google it you dumb shit.

Re:dual wan router (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36767652)

Aren't you just the very model of a courteous, considerate and empathetic piece of human excrement?

Linksys RV042 (1)

applematt84 (1135009) | more than 3 years ago | (#36767438)

I have a Linksys (now called Cisco) RV042 that has a dual WAN option and even offers load balancing with the newest firmware. Great product! I believe you can even install dd-wrt on it and make it do more than it was intended for. ;)

Duolinks SW24 (1)

droidsURlooking4 (1543007) | more than 3 years ago | (#36767454)

Dual WAN Load Balancer [] from SYSWAN. This thing is great. Tech support out of Oregon. $175 at newegg.

myself: load-shared routing in linux, mixed result (1)

boss_hog (212178) | more than 3 years ago | (#36767504)

You might want to look into load-balanced routing. I had a linux box with 3 NIC's, one NIC per ISP and one NIC to the rest of the house. I set it up for load-shared routing via the LARTC HOWTO, and for web traffic it worked ok.

I didn't stay with it because it wasn't stable for VPN connections. The decision about which upstream link to use was somehow governed by the local/remote host pairing, plus some unknown-to-me modifier. So I could establish a VPN connection, but it wouldn't keep the connection through 1 of the two links consistently. As soon as it tried to switch the VPN connection to route through the other uplink, pow, there went my VPN session. I don't recall the exact time before failure but it was less than 2 hours in most cases. made it basically unusable for me, at that time, for working from home. Perhaps that's solved(or can be configured around) by now.

I don't know/remember how it works for p2p either, though, since it was so long ago and the decision about which upstream path for any outbound traffic to take is controlled by the kernel on that routing box.

here's the relevant section of the LARTC HOWTO, in case you want to read more or try it out: []

Won't be easy .. or simple. (1)

n5vb (587569) | more than 3 years ago | (#36767610)

I see people trying this all the time, and there's one unavoidable bump in that road: connecting from two totally different public IP's in two totally different IP blocks that are native to two totally different DNS domains. DNS can be worked around to some extent by going to a common DNS server that's outside, and visible from, both domains, like Google or OpenDNS, but that runs into issues resolving in-network hostnames because a lot of ISP's provide different IP's for in-network vs out-of-network services, which can impact email and some streaming services to third party set-top devices pretty heavily. And the in-network services you're connecting to may not know how to handle you if you connect to an externally resolved IP from an in-network address block.

It's *possible* you could hack a home server/router combo to provide split DNS that will resolve properly to in-network services on both connections properly, but that configuration (and routing appropriately to separate WAN's on separate networks) is *very* non-trivial and will be squirrelly as hell if it's not tuned just right, and possibly just squirrelly as hell, period.

Honestly, I'd set up your local router/WAP for a network that's separate from your neighborhood wifi's SSID and just switch networks as needed..

There are a few dual-WAN routers (2)

BenEnglishAtHome (449670) | more than 3 years ago | (#36767632)

At home, I have both cable and DSL. I use a Vigor2930N from DrayTek. []

Works like a charm. []

There have been other mentions of a Cisco/Linksys product (the 104, I believe) but I went with the Draytek because I wanted integrated wireless, too.

pfSense on a NetGate for about $200 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36767740)

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?