GWN7000 multi-WAN failover option not available in firmware 1.0.6.32


#1

I have two ISP connections on fiber. Both are 150mbps.

However when WAN1 fails, I lose internet connectivity.

The Load_Balancing_Failover_Guide says to configure global settings to LoadBalance+Failover, however my GWN7000 does not have this option at all. It only has loadbalance, WAN1 and WAN2!

I have checked in the WAN. Local Routing and the LAN settings, and there is no option for LoadBalancing+Failover.

As it stands today, if my primary LAN fails I lose internet connectivity in spite of having a secondary line.

I am running firmware version 1.0.6.32. I raised a ticket about this 4 days ago, and no response whatsoever from support.

Another general observation - the manuals refer to options that no longer exist, or are different now: For example there is no such thing as Network Group in the latest firmware, but sure enough all the manuals refer to it!

I’ve attached the screenshots of the relevant configuration pages. Any suggestions?

WAN1Config|689x459


#2

For this, I am afraid you will need to submit a ticket to support:


#3

For 1.0.6.x. Failover and load balancing can be accomplished by new feature as “Policy routing”. You can recreate Policy member as set of “interface+metric+weight”. Then you can add your members to a policy.
In one applied policy, same metric interface will perform load balancing by weight, and lower metric will get higher priority.


#4

Is this documented in the resource folder?


#5

Yes. User manual http://www.grandstream.com/sites/default/files/Resources/gwn7000_usermanual.pdf
Starting page 48.


#6

This achieves load balancing but DOES NOT achieve fail-over.

These settings by default ONLY create a load balance policy, and are already configured on my router. However, when my primary WAN fails, I lose internet connectivity. There is no fail-over that executes using this routing method.

I raised a ticket 5 days ago, and no response from support.

Also the load-balancing guide that is published is completely different from the interface for the firmware version interface.


#7

I have the same experience…