Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[aesmith]

Yeah I got around that by monitoring a known fixed IP further out on the Internet that it wouldn't matter if traffic to that IP always went over the backup WAN.

The issue with Mikrotik is you can't point a route to just an Ethernet interface the way you can to a point-to-point i/f. I know technically it's possible if the neighbouring router supports proxy ARP, but as far as I can see Mikrotik won't accept that configuration. So if I choose let's say 1.1.1.2 as one of my tracked objects I need to configure its route as via an adjacent next hop IP. Which is fine if it's always 100.64.0.1, but would fail if that's liable to change on future connections.

[Alex Atkin UK]

The issue with Mikrotik is you can't point a route to just an Ethernet interface the way you can to a point-to-point i/f. I know technically it's possible if the neighbouring router supports proxy ARP, but as far as I can see Mikrotik won't accept that configuration. So if I choose let's say 1.1.1.2 as one of my tracked objects I need to configure its route as via an adjacent next hop IP. Which is fine if it's always 100.64.0.1, but would fail if that's liable to change on future connections.

That's annoying, pfSense seems to handle this automatically as you specify the IP used to ping to monitor that gateways health.

[aesmith]

I don't know Pfsense. From the gear I know I could configure it on Cisco relying on proxy ARP.  I don't think I've ever had to as customer typically had separate firewalls for their main and failover Internet, so the tracking and route switching would be on a Nexus or something. Meraki has some inherent failover mechanism, it probably tests connection to their cloud or something.

Anyway back to Starlink, nobody seems to know.  I've raised a support case and see if they give a sensible answer.  Otherwise Plan A is just configure on the assumption it's fixed. If that turns out not to be the case, worst case I could renumber parts of my network to remove the address conflict, and switch the Starlink out of Bypass.That means triple NAT, you can't put a static inside route into Starlink.

I might do the renumber anyway, 192.168.1.0/24 is too common a default so there's a chance of a future conflict anyway.

[Alex Atkin UK]

I might do the renumber anyway, 192.168.1.0/24 is too common a default so there's a chance of a future conflict anyway.

I had to renumber as my friend on AT&T in the US was on 192.168.0 and then when they launched IPv6 they switched him to .1, blocking him access to my VPN.

I'm so glad in the UK we aren't typically stuck with ISP routers, where they can LAN settings on a whim or monitor what devices we have connected to profile us.  Its bad enough ISPs are allowed to monitor WAN traffic for anything other than network balancing and botnet detection.

[aesmith]

Anyway back to Starlink, nobody seems to know.  I've raised a support case and see if they give a sensible answer. 

I received two irrelevant responses going on about public addresses or other unrelated matters. Looked like standard bumf spewed out in response to the word "address" in the question. Third time lucky they confirmed that I can expect the next hop to always be 100.64.0.1. As I had hoped.