Hello everybody. I currently have 2 ISPs being load balanced on my RV340. Telefonica uses GPON and its modem is routed, but I could change it to bridge if needed. Claro uses coaxial cable and its modem is currently bridged. In IPv4 world it's working fine, Speedtest reports combined downstream and alternates upstream on each test. I have Pihole over dnsmasq handling DHCPv4. Recently I started building a server which I need accessed from Internet and worked out port forwarding, when I discovered that Claro was using CGNAT on me. I was able to make them give me a public IPv4 addr, but decided to get IPv6 working. At the moment, I have RV340 handing DHCPv6. I'm unable to make RV340 receive and distribute Telefonica's global prefix. I have DHCP-PD set on its WAN, but on VLAN page says it's inaccessible. I suppose that's because the modem is routed, but I can't find a setting on RV340 to accquire its PD and pass it to VLAN's DHCP. It works though with Claro. Maybe because it's bridged, the global prefix is shown on VLAN page and I set it. But it's not working properly. My Ubuntu server passes ipv6-test.com, but my Win7 and Win10 PCs fail. All of them are set to receive IPv4 and IPv6 addresses from DHCP. And, since Telefonica's WAN has its DHCP-PD as inaccessible, it's unusable for IPv6. Reading Pihole's forum, I've seen a few people setting their routers to handle ULA (Unique Local Address) parallel to global address. I don't see how to do that on RV340. What I'm willing to do: 1) fix Telefonica's global prefix delegation. 2) setup RV340's VLAN to delegate both WANs' global prefixes and disable its DHCPv6 server (as is its DHCPv4) 3) setup Pihole's dnsmasq to receive both global prefixes and distribute global IPv6 addresses to all my LAN devices 4) setup Pihole's dnsmasq to distribute ULAs to all devices, so that I have fixed addresses independent from ISPs global prefixes changes, and attribute domain names to them (as it's doing in IPv4) 5) with all that set, have RV340 properly load balance both WANs in IPv6 as it's doing in IPv4 6) Final goal 1: temporary disable IPv4 on a Windows PC and solely by IPv6 be able to SSH my Ubuntu server, set settings on my RV340, trace route to OpenDNS's servers and make searches on Google. 7) Final goal 2: from a Windows PC connected directly to a ISP's modem (or from my laptop using phone's 4G, in case I'm needed to bridge both modems), reach back my LAN and access my Pihole's dashboard. That's a lot of work for sure. Could anybody help me or guide me? I'd be glad if a Cisco representative could help me on RV340 settings, specially on delegating both ISPs global prefixes to a DHCPv6 server on my LAN. I've never cared about IPv6 before a week ago, so I apologize if I said something noob.
... View more
I've found a possible solution, but it's not working properly. I found this bash script on linux if fping -c 1 -t 5 ISP1-IP &> /dev/null
fi fping is similar to ping, but fit for scripts. -c 1 makes it send a unique ping and -t 5 makes it timeout in 5ms. ISP1-IP is an IP on ISP1's intranet that's the closest to me. Pinging this IP through ISP1 is much quicker than through ISP2. If RV340 sends this ping from WAN1 it succeeds and if sent from WAN2 it fails. This way I can create some monitoring. The problem is that RV340 is always using WAN1 for all pings. This makes the same code for ISP2's IP to always go through ISP1, and always fail. I double checked and WAN > Mult-WAN has WAN1 and WAN2 both with precedence 1 and percentage 50%. Why are all pings going through WAN1, even when WAN2 is closer?
... View more
Hello eveybody. I have a RV340 load balancing 2 ISPs. I wanna monitor each of these ISP's availability. The issue is that neither of them have, ALAIK, some host that's only accessible from inside their intranet. It means that if I simply use a monitoring tool based on ping and point to some of their IPs, if they go offline RV340 will use the other ISP and ping will succeed. I'd need a way to set RV340 so that any ping (or any other monitoring tool that runs on linux) sent to a specific IP should always use WAN1, and another IP always use WAN2. If WAN1 goes down, pings to IP1 will fail, and monitoring tool will record that ISP is down. Is there any way to accomplish that?
... View more
Hello. I'm using Cisco RV340 with 2 independent ISPs under load balancing.
I wanna monitor each of these ISP in case they go down. By tracerouting I've chosen 1 IP inside each of their networks to monitor.
But, during tests, I figured that their IPs are publicly available for pinging. That means that when a ISP goes down, I still can ping its IP by the other ISP. Therefore I'm unable to (easily) monitor if and when they go down. My next guess would then some way to force each of these 2 IPs to only be routed to their equivalent WAN port. If its ISP goes down, RV340 won't try to route to to the other WAN port and ping will fail. What would be the best and simplest way to achieve that?
... View more