Load Balance PCC question


#1

Hi, I hope someone can help me, I’m testing Splynx with a CCR1016 that I relegated the role of Load Balance with 4 wan and the role of PPPoE Server.
My problem is that PPPoE traffic generated by the PPPoE connection is not distributed on the four Wan, does anyone have any suggestions, including with other load balancing solutions?


#2

funny you should ask a question like this …best is to mark the connections on the incoming interface…so that will be pppoe interfaces and the mark route…
try looking at this https://aacable.wordpress.com/2011/07/27/mikrotik-dual-wan-load-balancing-using-pcc-method-complete-script-by-zaib/
might not even be necessary… because its on the wan interfaces. just make sure your banking and games are on a sticky connection as this will give you problems…


#3

Thanks for the answer, I applied the LB PCC solution, which is the only one that gives me more reliability.
The problem is that the data flow from the PPPoE connections is not distributed on the 4 wans as if using normal PC-connected connections to the LB PCC router. So I assume that Splynx makes a router and presents data streams with a single ip (as if doing NAT) and therefore the PCC system does not distribute the load on the 4 Wan.
I was thinking of the solution of assigning static ips to PPPoE users on the same LB Gateway subnet as if I were giving PPPoE users public IP addresses so that PPPoE users come to the LB router with their own IP without any routing from Splynx.
The problem I do not know how to do this configuration in Splynx, if you kindly give me support as if we can not overcome this problem we can not put Splynx into production. I think all Wisps use a LB system and so the solution should not be very difficult to find. Attached router configuration file and an image as Splynx assigns IPs.
Thanks to all those who want to give me some help


#4

Hello,

So I assume that Splynx makes a router and presents data streams with a single ip (as if doing NAT) and therefore the PCC system does not distribute the load on the 4 Wan.

This is incorrect assumption. You are blaming Splynx to be responsible for something it’s not responsible. Splynx is not involved in routing and creation of PPPoE session. It only authenticates the PPPoE username and password over database and says to Mikrotik - OK, customer can login. You can even set in Splynx service section to not assign IP to client, and IP will be assigned by Mikrotik from it’s IP -> Pool section.

May I ask you a favor - for testing purpose, please try to disconnect Radius server or Splynx and just create static secrets in your Mikrotik settings on PPPoE Server. And use static IPs or Mikrotik IP pools.

What will you see? Is it the same behaviour like when Splynx assigns IP address?


#5

Thanks for the answer though I do not much help.
I know perfectly that Splynx interacts through the API with the Mikrotik router, and this is a great thing because it simplifies everything.
Obviously then I make some mistake I can not detect, because if I connect PCs and use the router gateway directly the PCC works perfectly, if the traffic comes from the PPPoE server, the PCC does not come into play and traffic is truncated only on Wan1.
Does anyone then have any solutions to offer? Or better if someone has already done this kind of configurations can share his experience? Thank you very much.
Plynk’s involvement might be in an incorrect configuration of the IP Pool created in Splynk?
However, I have the impression that some configuration is missing that makes Mikrotik understand that the IP stream generated by the PPPoEs has to be transmitted to PCC


#6

As @alexcherry said, Splynx is just an radius Billing system.

PCC / load balancing is done by the Mikrotik Routerboard. so if load is not distributing among all wan links, its the mikrotik that you should troubleshoot.

In PCC, there is a option called classifier, it decides what type of load balancing you want to achieve. there are 8 types.

If users request are directly hitting Mikrotik configured with PCC , then you will get good load balancing. Try both addresses and ports approach as the classifier. While this will randomize things the most and in theory give you the most fair allocation of bandwidth, BUT there is also a good chance that it will break certain things like banking web sites and some forums. This is because often times a HTTP requests will generate several connections, so there is a chance that some requests may go out a different route than the initial one, and that will break secure web sites. For that reason I usually stick with src-address for PCC load balancing. in src-address approach user will auto distribute to wan links and will stick to that wan it was attached initially for that connected session. means a single suer wont be able to use all wan links.

IF with both-address-and-ports approach you are still unable to distribute load among all wan links , then it must be MANGLE section issue, check all mangle rules that thay are counting or not.


#7

Perhaps the error is due to the fact that I used only one Mikrotik router to do load balancing and PPPoE Server. I made a modification indicating how ALL PPPOE source and the PCC load balace work properly, only that I can not reach the IPs of the antennas for the management and maintenance.
Now I’ve added a Mikrotik to make PCC and a second Mikrotil to do PPPoE servers, at this point I wanted to know if you need to configure the second Mikrotik in router mode or just enable the PPPoE server on the affected port. Thank you

“Hi, In the network I am configuring I already have a firewall upstream of everything that acts as a gateway, I would like to know if I need to configure the CCC1016 that I use to do from PPPoE Server to configure the same port for Wan and one for the Lan ? In practice since the network is already upstream I did not want a second router pass.
Also, what configuration can you recommend to assist PPPoE Public Addresses clients?
Thank you so much”