How to correctly setup failover over 3 Wan's?

have 3 wan's that are being loadbalaned.

but how do i correctly setup failover?

wiki only discusses dual configuration

GruensFroeschli

The same as with 2 WANs.
You simply add one more WAN to the pool.

just to get a solid YES from everybody.

for 2 WAN's it was:

1
2

and then

2
1

Do I get it right, that for 3 WAN's it should be:

1
2
3

2
3
1

3
1
2

?

jasonlitka

Why are you creating more than one rule for failover? Do you have some clients that use one rule and other clients that use the other?

GruensFroeschli

Of course you can make 2^n: n= number of WANs, pools.
But not much sense in that since you can only use one of the pools in a single rule.

Depending on which WAN you want to use primarily, have this WAN as the first in the list.
Just add your additional WANs below in the order you want them to failover.

example:
You have 5 WANs.
WAN1: 1Mbit/1Mbit
WAN2: 4Mbit/1Mbit
WAN3: 10Mbit/10Mbit
WAN4: 256kBit/256kBit
WAN5: 100Mbit/100Mbit

I i would want the failover order to be:
5
3
2
1
4

What would make sense to have multiple different failover pools is, if you want different types of traffic which you want to go out a different WAN.

it is just in wiki they had two failover pools

2
1

and

1
2

with what you are saying; it is safe to have just one failover pool?

GruensFroeschli

What would make sense to have multiple different failover pools is, if you want different types of traffic which you want to go out a different WAN.

The wiki is an example of that.
You dont "need" multiple failover pools.
But if you just have a single failover-pool you will never make use of the second WAN unless the primary fails.
–> I makes sense to send some traffic out one WAN and other traffic to the other. (example: http traffic WAN1, everything else WAN2)
--> --> For that you need 2 failover pools.

with what you are saying; it is safe to have just one failover pool?

what should not be safe? ;)