ASUS Dual-WAN Routing Rules

[MJB87]

Trying to set up an AC68U running latest stock firmware for dual WAN with load balancing. The manual and FAQs available from ASUS provide no information about setting up routing rules. I have scoured the web and the information is confusing and often in conflict. I want to clarify a few things.

1. Do I need to set up two rules for each IP address (ALL->LAN IP and LAN IP->ALL) to capture two-way traffic or does setting up one rule (ALL->LAN IP) handle traffic both ways? Lots of examples of people setting up two rules for each IP address but others say you don’t need to do this. What is the answer?

2. Can I enter a range of LAN IP addresses (e.g., 192.168.1.10/25) rather than a specific LAN IP when assigning LAN devices to the primary or secondary WAN? Is the example above the correct format?

3. I have a few cases where port forwarding is being used. (These are on a separate VLAN with no access to other parts of the network, for security.) I also use VPN to access the LAN remotely. (Both WANs are set up with DDNS.) Will these requests for remote access “get through” regardless of which WAN source is used, or do I need to specify a specific WAN for these items in order to ensure remote access. In other words, does port forwarding only work for the primary WAN, for both WANs, or only via the WAN specified for a specific device on the LAN?

Many thanks.

 

[onix]

Did you find additional configuration information? Or does no one really do this?

 

[MJB87]

I never found out how to make it work and gave up on it. My Asus routers are now unplugged and sitting on a shelf. Instead, I migrated to a dual-WAN Peplink Balance 210 which has phenomenal ability to manage multiple WANs with a high degree of sophistication.

 

[Trip]

Was just about to say, if you're serious about multi-WAN and require an approachable alternative, chuck the consumer stuff and go Peplink. High cost for the throughput you get, but you get what you pay for in a working product and high-quality support. If you have the skill, then options open up considerably further, but Peplink is always a safe start.

 

[MJB87]

I second that. The hardware is very costly but it works and the software is very well designed.

 

[onix]

Thanks, gents! I'm not sure I can afford it right now. It's odd that Dual WAN seems to be so hard to implement...

 

[ourcontact]

I had great luck with Dual Wan (mwan3) on OpenWRT, but the TP-Link router had poor WiFi radio performance.

 

[Trip]

Thanks, gents! I'm not sure I can afford it right now. It's odd that Dual WAN seems to be so hard to implement...

It is a bit disappointing, but proper multi-WAN requires code that can reliably weight, monitor, balance and fail-over traffic, and up until now at least, if it's ever been included in SOHO stuff, it's only been so as an afterthought, at least in my opinion. Granted, there are some exceptions if you're willing to tinker with third-party firmwares (I think Merlin and Tomato both have multi-WAN), but for something that's a sure bet, I would lean more towards Peplink or a corporate-class firewall distro with a somewhat-friendly interface such as pfSense, OpenWRT or Untangle. You can do it on the cheap with Mikrotik or Ubiquiti, but they lack easy GUI's, so many people will find them off-putting.

 

[onix]

I love the Microtik's! I suspect anyone who is on these forums would be game for their wonky GUI's, which is rather utilitarian and reminiscent of a long-forgotten Eastern Block era

 

[Trip]

Haha, yeah, I'm assuming your talking about WinBox, which for as much as it looks like 1990's Win95 GUI, is tremendously powerful and certainly gets the job done. The web GUI is slightly more spaced-out visually and is a tad less responsive (being a web app) than WinBox is, but still very usable.