RV042 - any chance of a different load balancing algorithm?

Discussion in 'Cisco Small Business Routers and VPN Solutions' started by Sugarmonster, Oct 20, 2006.

  1. Sugarmonster

    Sugarmonster LI Guru Member

    I don't know if linksys read these forums or not, but if anyone is listening I'd like to put in a plea for an enhancement in future firmware releases:

    The round robin load balancing on the RV042 just seems to alternate the ports for outgoing connections as far as I can tell. I don't know whether the bandwidth values you can enter for each port alter a weighting algorithm internally but at some level it's still alternating the ports.

    Personally I'd like to bring up the second WAN port based on useage. I have a relatively high speed primary ISP and a slower connection with a different ISP for backup. Since they're both unlimited, I might as well use the backup to suppliment my bandwidth but I don't want it used as a matter of course, because this means that instead of getting the most out of the fast ISP half my connections are routinely made with the slower one.

    So some sort of "bring up the second WAN port after the primary one hits this %age capacity" would be my preferred mechanism.

    Just my 2p.
  2. moi2

    moi2 LI Guru Member

    SugarM - From my understanding, this was a feature on the RV042 on an earlier firmware version, but was replaced by the protocol binding feature.

    Not much help - I know, but maybe useful information..

    (btw - looks like we both posted roughly the same topic at the same time, sorry about that) :)
  3. Sugarmonster

    Sugarmonster LI Guru Member

    I did a search and found reference to removing the original load balancing feature because "it was hard to understand with protocol binding".

    I don't get that, in my mind it's very simple: Protocol binding takes priority, period. If I've nailed a port or IP range to WAN1 then that's where I want it going, all the time and every time regardless of any other rules (unless WAN1 is down of course).

    In the absense of a protocol binding rule, then load balance appropriately - what's hard to understand about that?

    Of course that does rely on the protocol binding working properly in the first place, but that's another story ;)
  4. pablito

    pablito Network Guru Member

    I have wonder about the logic of simplifying an interface to the point of being unusable by folks that do understand and expect it to perform in a basic way. I've been holding on to an RV8 for a client waiting for firmware that worked. The new firmware fixes a great deal however the load balancing is faulty if it fails to work for session based browsing or protocol binding. I'm still nervous about putting it online at the intended location.

    Without bumping into Cisco market share the RV in my mind is intended for folks that do have a clue or at least they should know.

    If the code is GPL does this mean there is hope of 3rd party firmware that works as expected even if that means I have to think just a little?
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice