Use RV345 Backup USB WAN to Solve Erratic Internet

[parkernathan]

I recently moved to an RV345 away from my ISP-managed equipment (Cambium Networks). My ISP (a local point-to-point WISP) has been having erratic Internet on my primary WAN. Sometimes it completely drops, other times the connection doesn't completely drop but is glitchy enough where it is unusable.

Since I am now in a dual WAN position with the RV345, I am wondering if investing in a second ISP to put on the dual WAN would resolve my erratic and glitchy Internet issues. My options are limited here. The only other backup option I'd possibly have is a Verizon 4G LTE connection using a USB730L plugged into the USB port and setting the USB port as the second WAN.

I know there is a way to set the RV345 second WAN as a failover if the primary WAN completely goes offline. Is there a way to set the RV345 so that the failover WAN kicks in if the primary WAN connection is erratic enough (but hasn't completely dropped) where the connection is unusable on the primary WAN?

I would only want the second WAN to kick in if the primary WAN either was completely offline or if the connection reached a certain threshold where the primary WAN connection was unusable since the Verizon connection will be severely limited on the amount of high-speed data I would have access to.

Also, I have an Earth Networks HD Camera: https://www.earthnetworks.com/product/accessories/video-cameras/. I need to be able to access the camera live stream remotely (since that is how HQ and our TV station partners currently access the live stream). I currently have Port Forwarding setup on Port 80 so when my IP address is typed in, the live stream of the camera appears. I'm on a static IP with my primary WAN, so it hasn't been a major issue. If I go into a dual WAN setup though, that could cause a conflict.

I see that there is a way to use Cisco's DNS O MATIC to update a Dynamic DNS on the RV345 if need be. I have a DNS O MATIC account setup. If I linked the updater to each WAN, would that resolve my issue there in the event the Public IP address changed so I could still remotely access the camera?

Thanks! 

[Sujoy Paria]

Hi Nathan,

Please check my comments below regarding your queries…

“I know there is a way to set the RV345 second WAN as a failover if the primary WAN completely goes offline. Is there a way to set the RV345 so that the failover WAN kicks in if the primary WAN connection is erratic enough (but hasn't completely dropped) where the connection is unusable on the primary WAN?”

• I think you are looking for some methodologies which can evaluate the quality of the WAN link and execute the fail-over decision on the RV345 router; such facility is not available currently on this router model. However, the RV345 router uses the NSD (Network Service Detection) mechanism to monitor the WAN status and accordingly execute forwarding decision based on the configuration on the ‘Multi-WAN settings’.

“I would only want the second WAN to kick in if the primary WAN either was completely offline or if the connection reached a certain threshold where the primary WAN connection was unusable since the Verizon connection will be severely limited on the amount of high-speed data I would have access to.”

• The first scenario can be achieved via failover configuration. However, to define any threshold for the WAN connectivity you may check the options for load-balancing, where you will get the options to load-balance either Weighted by Percentage or Weighted by Bandwidth.

“Also, I have an Earth Networks HD Camera: https://www.earthnetworks.com/product/accessories/video-cameras/ . I need to be able to access the camera live stream remotely (since that is how HQ and our TV station partners currently access the live stream). I currently have Port Forwarding setup on Port 80 so when my IP address is typed in, the live stream of the camera appears. I'm on a static IP with my primary WAN, so it hasn't been a major issue. If I go into a dual WAN setup though, that could cause a conflict.”

• It is recommended not to use the default browsing port 80 to access the camera remotely, it may create conflict. You may change the port number on the camera application and accordingly create port-forwarding rule on the RV345 router for remote access. While configuring Port-forwarding rule, you will get the option to specify the WAN interface. It will be helpful if you can define different service (port numbers) for those cameras and set the Port-forwarding rule accordingly to avoid the conflict.

“I see that there is a way to use Cisco's DNS O MATIC to update a Dynamic DNS on the RV345 if need be. I have a DNS O MATIC account setup. If I linked the updater to each WAN, would that resolve my issue there in the event the Public IP address changed so I could still remotely access the camera?”

• For dynamic IP connectivity you may use DynamicDNS option to reach the WAN interface via domain name in the event of Public IP address changed.

[parkernathan]

Thanks for the info. If I setup load balancing instead of failover, how would "weighted by percentage" work?

On the HD Cam, the Port 80 requirement is unfortunately set by my work (Earth Networks). I have no say so in the Port number I use for it, otherwise I'd choose a different number.

Thanks!

[Sujoy Paria]

Hi,

You may refer the below mentioned link regarding the Weighted by Percentage (For Load-Balance) configuration on the RV34x series routers…

https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/smb/routers/cisco-rv-series-small-business-routers/KMGMT-1568_WAN_Load_balancing_on_RV340_Router.html

[MattLewandowsky · Accepted solution]

The good and the bad... (Based on my RV340W)

The good: The USB730L is indeed supported and I see speeds upwards of 100 Mbit/s over it as my USB1 link. It works both in failover and load-balancing modes. Also, the USB730L is unlockable, so that you can use an AT&T SIM in it if you have that as an option that meets your needs better.

The bad: My RV340W locks up at random when doing lots of data transfer over the USB730L, on the latest firmware (1.0.03.17 as of this writing), leaving the router only operable as a LAN switch (DHCP and WAN functionality ceases, as does the Web UI) until someone goes and powers it off and back on. And, unfortunately, there does not seem to be any mechanism for band-locking the USB730L in the Web UI, for either Verizon or AT&T, so hopefully whatever band is negotiated isn't too congested. The band in use is also not reported, and it doesn't seem that you can hit the my.usb page from behind the RV34x.

Based on your stated needs, the USB730L should work fine as a failover (and hopefully future firmware makes it more stable). I can't speak to whether Verizon allows you to have port 80 incoming, as that may be plan specific, but if you have the device and SIM, it should be quick and easy enough to find out. :)

[parkernathan]

Thanks for the info. I have a message into Verizon Exec Offices about the modem to see if it would work for my needs, as well as if I can be on the correct plan I'd need for it to function to my needs.

Verizon is the closest tower to me, and I believe it uses a pretty uncongested band. T-Mobile used to own the tower when I had them, but when Verizon took the tower over, I had to move to Verizon to keep solid coverage.

Hoping Cisco will address those issues in a future firmware update. Eventually I'm hoping to move to Verizon 5G to power my primary connection when they roll it out here, which should be more stable than my current ISP.

[MattLewandowsky]

It might be worth checking into AT&T's coverage and plans if your organization has good rapport with them, as well. If you have an old (grandfathered) unlimited hotspot plan that's being underutilized with either carrier, it might be worth doing a device swap to a USB730L and giving the user who isn't utilizing it much a modern data-capped plan. That would at least save haggling with the carriers since they don't seem to like high data plans right now.

On Verizon, the USB730L will prefer band 13. On AT&T (and probably T-Mobile), it will prefer 2 or 4 depending on your tower.

It might be possible to permanently bandlock it using AT commands in Linux (Verizon has an AT command reference that has the commands to do so), but I haven't been that ambitious just yet. It's really an option they should put into the Web UI: a new line item with checkboxes for each LTE band (Override LTE Band: [x]2 [x] 3 [x]4 [x]5 [x]13). I'm pretty sure that all of the supported USB dongles support an AT command to band lock, so it seems a sensical option for the Web UI to have with so many SMBs in areas with semi-congested towers where it might make the failover performance increase dramatically.

And I'm waiting for Verizon 5G at home too... Its footprint edge is walking distance from me, so I'm hopeful that I'll be part of the push of their next deployment later this year.

[parkernathan]

I spoke with Verizon, and I can get a higher-cap data plan with this device, but my guess is the RV345 doesn't support it:

https://www.verizon.com/internet-devices/inseego-jetpack-5g-mifi-m1000/#specsHeading

AT&T's coverage is flakey in my area unfortunately. I live in an area with funky terrain and lakes, which makes coverage in general spotty. They also have no plans to make any substantial investments in the area. My organization and my local city government all use Verizon, so Verizon is where all the coverage investments are here. Even Verizon isn't perfect here, but they're about to add a new tower closer to me that'll boost the signal. I had an excellent plan with T-Mobile and would have stayed with them over any of the carriers, but the coverage became so weak when they scaled back towers that I had to switch to Verizon even for reliable cell phone calls. I've been told Verizon will remain the only carrier with solid coverage here.

Verizon 5G is 50 miles from me, and we usually get what they get within a year, so I'm hoping we get it by next year. We need it badly.

[MattLewandowsky]

One option is to get that device and plug that into WAN2 (which avoids any RV USB instability, as well).
Alternatively, you *might* be able to get that Jetpack and then in a week or two do a device swap of the line to the USB730L. But, I expect the new Jetpack will offer higher performance than a Cat. 6 LTE device, and it's ready for 5G when you get it.
And I feel you on AT&T. Many of my local towers are extremely congested and they don't care since it's not one of the "money-making" areas of the city. T-Mobile was nearly as bad until they started upgrading towers to support Band 71 last summer, and they're more than willing to roll a truck when I report a service issue so they can make sure the area's worst spots are fixed. Verizon is seemingly rolling on being Verizon and just quietly add and upgrade towers, though I've been told to not expect to see much more until new 5G hardware arrives around October. I just live in an area that hasn't seen much major infrastructure investment until recently.

[parkernathan]

Can you tell if that device can be plugged into WAN2, or would I need additional hardware to make it work?

I'm near one of the "money-making" areas of the city, but I have the worst terrain, so unless a tower is right down the road from me, coverage gets erratic. That's finally about to change now that a huge water tower just went installed down the road from me. :-) 

AT&T got into issues with the state, so they paused network upgrades. T-Mobile was good until they scaled back. They tried COWs here, but the distance+terrain is still too much to resolve the coverage issues. Verizon has made some upgrades to decommission CDMA and refarm into LTE, but I know the big stuff won't come until 5G. I'm in a similar boat with infrastructure investment. It baffles me that I can travel to the middle of nowhere and have fiber run into a building but here I have issues with both fixed ISPs and cell phone coverage.

[parkernathan]

I looked over the specs of the JetPack. It does support Ethernet, so that is an option, but I'd have to find out if it'd create a Double NAT on my network or if I could do IP Passthrough for the Earth Networks HD Cam.

I found out the Verizon rep was incorrect on the data plans. There'd be no data plan difference between the JetPack and the USB modem, so if I did go for one, I guess the key is which one is going to give me better performance/reliability.