|
| |
MooJohn join:2005-12-18 Milledgeville, GA
2 recommendations |
Welcome to 2002So they're going to do what multi-WAN routers have done for 10+ years, except proxy the traffic through their "cloud" for some reason? It may be able to deliver a single stream at the combined max bandwidth vs the older ones that limit traffic to a single interface but that sounds like a lot more complexity for little to no real benefit. | |
|
| |
Re: Welcome to 2002Agreed, it make no sense. Your ping times will be much higher since they have to go through their proxy. And if their service is ever shut down your expensive router no longer works. | |
|
| | |
Re: Welcome to 2002Not "much" unless they choose their data centers poorly.
Heck, you might *decrease* ping times if they choose "cloud" providers correctly, close to their members. | |
|
| | | |
Re: Welcome to 2002Not when they "put the packets back in the right order and send them on their way". Your max ping and jitter can be be no better than the router's worst internet connection. | |
|
| |
to MooJohn
I could see this use case in emerg situations, but w/ caps on cellular why would one even consider that right now.
What would be more interesting would be wifi aggregation or cell/wifi (like freedom pop), esp w/ whitespace, because once MSO continue putting unreasonable caps on internet, people are going to get smart and start pooling their accounts.
Imagine whitespace vendors popping up undercutting MSO's, or simple neighbors sharing...
In fact this would be useful in cell phones to offload cellular data.
Why would someone promote the MOST expensive option for data is beyond me.
Now if caps keep going down it may make sense to order two links, but that doesn't need proxy servers, any low-cost server can do that... | |
|
| | |
Re: Welcome to 2002You used to be able to share your DSL connection with your neighbors under Speakeasy. But that has been long ago. It was killed before MP took over but no real numbers where shown. I don't see it happening again with caps and the TOS' stopping you from sharing that connection. | |
|
|
1 recommendation |
to MooJohn
I think the whole point of the proxy is to actually bond the connections together. A normal multiwan separates by threads and picks the one that's up and has capacity. What these guys are trying to do is actually combine the bandwidth for a single thread over multiple links. BIG difference.
I would hope their solution is able to weight the connections based on things like Caps, speeds up and down, and other details like ping times etc. | |
|
| batterupI Can Not Tell A Lie. Premium Member join:2003-02-06 Netcong, NJ |
to MooJohn
said by MooJohn:So they're going to do what multi-WAN routers have done for 10+ years, except proxy the traffic through their "cloud" for some reason? If someone didn't combine all the loops into one it would be like when I use a 4G modem with DSL on the same computer. I get the bandwidth of both but can only use one to download a single file; I can't split a SINGLE download between the two. | |
|
| | MooJohn join:2005-12-18 Milledgeville, GA |
Re: Welcome to 2002The sentence after what you quoted stated that, perhaps just not as succinctly. | |
|
| |
to MooJohn
The benefit is for them Because it allows them to charge a monthly fee! | |
|
| |
to MooJohn
Well this could help those that live in 768kbps DSL areas that would like to stack 4 to 8 accounts to get decent speed. | |
|
| |
to MooJohn
would be cheaper to move.. P:) | |
|
|
You can do that nowfor free..
PFsense, put in as many NICS you want all the connections you want. You get more features for free (snort, squid3, strikeback, etc). Using round robin you can have TCP connections go through each nic balancing out..or if you have 1 connection slower you can weight the connections so more go through your faster connection, less through your slower.
My Pfsense box was found at the dump 3 years ago. IDE 80GB Hd, 1Gb ram, 4 nics. 1 lan, 1 'test nic has 3 vlans off of it, 2 wan connections balanced.. | |
|
|
2 recommendations |
Re: You can do that nowI use PFsense for multi wan 2, and it's great. But it doesn't aggrigate the 2 connections into 1 which is what I think these guys are trying to accomplish. For example, if you have 2, 10mbit connections behind pfsense, the most you can see on a single threaded download is 10mbit. The point of their proxy is to have those 2 connections go to their proxy, their proxy would have full capacity for a single thread at their server, then split it to your router over the 2 connections into your home. | |
|
| | |
Re: You can do that nowpfsense will bond (up to 6) pppoe connections into 1 wan connection via mlppp. Ive been doing two connections this way for just over two years at my office. | |
|
whfsdude Premium Member join:2003-04-05 Washington, DC |
whfsdude
Premium Member
2013-Oct-4 9:40 am
Multihoming - Service Provider (MSP)Multihoming service providers are likely going to become a thing for multihoming in a v6 environment. It's being worked on as a part of the set of homenet standards. » tools.ietf.org/html/draf ··· ection-4 | |
|
skeechanAi Otsukaholic Premium Member join:2012-01-26 AA169|170 4 edits |
skeechan
Premium Member
2013-Oct-4 9:40 am
Not going to be any fasterI had a Nexland Pro800Turbo many years ago and residential load balancing doesn't live up to the hype and causes more problems than it solves.
HTML HTTP standards recommend only 2 concurrent/parallel connections (so some servers won't dish out to a crapload of concurrent connections) and many sites limit download to a single IP (remember DL accelerators?) per request (first IP gets to use the referral while the others are rejected at hotlinks). So the solution is running it all through a 3rd party (the MSP) to in effect, bond the connections. That isn't going to provide anything but crap throughput and sky high latency. | |
|
| MxxCon join:1999-11-19 Brooklyn, NY |
MxxCon
Member
2013-Oct-4 2:47 pm
Re: Not going to be any fasterHTML standard has absolutely nothing to do with number of simultaneous connections one establishes with a server. | |
|
| | skeechanAi Otsukaholic Premium Member join:2012-01-26 AA169|170 |
skeechan
Premium Member
2013-Oct-4 4:22 pm
Re: Not going to be any fasterDerp, I meant HTTP. | |
|
1 recommendation |
TAZ
Anon
2013-Oct-4 9:44 am
Quit comparing to multi-WAN routersThis is completely different. Multi-WAN routers only assign a flow to a particular connection, so the throughput you get on that connection is limited to the throughput of whatever connection it was assigned to.
This, on the other hand, is able to provide the aggregate throughput of all connections, by fragmenting packets, sending them through all connections to their proxy service (ignore the "cloud" bullshit marketing), and reassembling them there.
It's nothing new either, this has been done for awhile (Google "VPN bonding" and there have been some other startups doing it too). | |
|
| ilikeme Premium Member join:2002-08-27 Stafford, TX |
ilikeme
Premium Member
2013-Oct-4 9:59 am
Re: Quit comparing to multi-WAN routersSounds like someone works for the company that makes this. | |
|
| | NightfallMy Goal Is To Deny Yours MVM join:2001-08-03 Grand Rapids, MI |
Re: Quit comparing to multi-WAN routerssaid by ilikeme:Sounds like someone works for the company that makes this. It doesn't matter if he works for the company or not, what he says is true. There are many questions that pop up in the network section of this forum related to aggregating the bandwidth of two or more broadband connections. To see a device that can do this is nice, but I wouldn't do it. I like the idea of load balancing and failover more than joining the connections together through a cloud of some kind. | |
|
| | |
TAZ to ilikeme
Anon
2013-Oct-4 10:26 am
to ilikeme
said by ilikeme:Sounds like someone works for the company that makes this. For the record, I do not. | |
|
| | rradina join:2000-08-08 Chesterfield, MO
1 recommendation |
to ilikeme
No -- it sounds like someone who understands how it will work instead of speculating that it's the same as a multi-WAN router. | |
|
| | | (Software) pfSense Asus RT-AC68 Asus RT-AC66
|
Re: Quit comparing to multi-WAN routersExactly, while I admit for someone with access to a 50/25 FiOS connection I see no need for this, this is more for those with only a few slow links available to make single transfers and high speed streaming possible.
Imagine the guy that only has access to 3mbps dsl trying to stream netflix, it's going to suck, but team up a couple dsl lines and maybe a 3G connection and you can do it.
Only issue I see here is their should be some cap control added, so that you can monitor how much data you allow over each connection. | |
|
| | | | |
Re: Quit comparing to multi-WAN routersexactly!
I would suggest balancing be weighted on speeds up and down, Caps, and latencies. That algorithm might be difficult, but that would be their selling point. PFsense can do weighting based on connection speeds, but there's no cut off when you hit a cap.
Imagine having a DSL with unlimited and a cable connection that's capped. If the device was smart enough it would send all the low priority / low size stuff through the unlimited connection, saving the faster cable connection for larger downloads that you want in a hurry. As the cap on the cable connection is reached, it minimized data through that connection until it cuts it off just before the cap.
That being said, there would have to be other factors, like when the caps start and stop in a given month. | |
|
| | | | rradina join:2000-08-08 Chesterfield, MO |
to MovieLover76
What's really interesting is that the central aggregation service can make a profit for $5/month. Out of that paltry sum, they have to pay for servers, routers, admins, developers, billing and in + out bandwidth. I would guess their bandwidth needs will be huge. Unlike a typical high-volume site (i.e. YouTube), the aggregate service is in the middle. Every inbound byte will send an outbound byte. That's a pretty strong indicator of how cheap data really is. | |
|
| | batterupI Can Not Tell A Lie. Premium Member join:2003-02-06 Netcong, NJ |
to ilikeme
said by ilikeme:Sounds like someone works for the company that makes this. He may not be the only one who has a connection to a provider posting on this forum. The doers are an asset, the hangers on, like MCI was, are the danger as they promise everything and deliver nothing. The problem as I see it combining four 3 meg DSLs will get one a 12/3.2 loop for about $340 a month. I would never put a 4G in the mix because of cost; that loop would most likely get most of the traffic too as it would be by far the fastest. | |
|
| Mellow Premium Member join:2001-11-16 Salisbury, MD |
Mellow to TAZ
Premium Member
2013-Oct-4 10:02 am
to TAZ
Exactly.
But now you have 1 central point of failure added to the mix. | |
|
| | ••••••••••• |
| exocet_cmWriting Premium Member join:2003-03-23 Brooklyn, NY |
to TAZ
Untangle can do WAN balancing but not WAN aggregation. » wiki.untangle.com/index. ··· BalancerThis product claims to do aggregation, which is what you said. But even then, how many have the money to pay for multiple ISPs? | |
|
| | |
TAZ
Anon
2013-Oct-4 10:30 am
Re: Quit comparing to multi-WAN routerssaid by exocet_cm:This product claims to do aggregation, which is what you said. But even then, how many have the money to pay for multiple ISPs? IMO, businesses. All their marketing is talking about Netflix and other consumer applications, but you are correct in that it will never take off in that market. In that market, I see far more promise in service provider bonding offerings (like what CenturyLink and AT&T are doing now). | |
|
| | | |
Re: Quit comparing to multi-WAN routersI run an business and we use load balanced DSL, Cable and fiber. True we can't aggregate them but with hundreds of users it works well to spread the load of 7.1mbit DLS, 50 mbit cable and 100 mbit fiber. | |
|
|
That Device...Looks a lot like a ALIX setup... | |
|
exocet_cmWriting Premium Member join:2003-03-23 Brooklyn, NY |
Cool...Now my grandma can bond her satellite and 56K! My bad, it said broadband. Grandma is still stuck in the past. | |
|
swarto112 Premium Member join:2004-02-17 El Dorado Hills, CA |
multi wan been around along time.i was using a home multi wan router about 10 years ago. had both a cable and dsl line...cable had the download speed and del had the upload speed. (we're talking 1.5mb/725 days) i set it to load balance with priorities to the fastest speed. Was lucky enuf to work for a company that wanted me to be able to go on so they footed the bill. also, when i realized that att didnt meter or lock down internet at the time, i cut the cord and ran the whole house of off a moto razr2 hooked to a cradlepoint router. this is all not new...just to the writer. | |
|
| |
Re: multi wan been around along time.The way they are doing it is new. It's not just using one link or the other like a multi WAN router. It is using all links and aggregating the traffic at their datacenter and sending it to the destination. Then when it receives that data back, it splits it up and sends it back to you over the multiple links. | |
|
| | swarto112 Premium Member join:2004-02-17 El Dorado Hills, CA |
Re: multi wan been around along time.ya thats called transport protocol, thats been standard transmission since the begining of the internet | |
|
|
Only one good optionI'd do connection bonding if it significantly decreased my throughput. But either it doesn't (bonding with 6/768 AT&T DSL) or the resulting connection would be heavily capped (T-Mobile or Verizon LTE). Or I really shouldn't be using the connection for home broadband (Sprint LTE). And bonding two TWC connections probably wouldn't get me 2x the speed because I already see occasional congestion issues, and there are only four channels to bond here.
My time is valuable, and by extension so is a connection that will decrease the time it takes to do stuff. But not $8+ per GB on a home connection valuable. | |
|
| |
Re: Only one good optionWhy do you want to decrease your throughput? | |
|
| | |
Re: Only one good optionUploading large videos to YouTube and doing online backups, mostly. So, upload-intensive stuff. | |
|
tshirt Premium Member join:2004-07-11 Snohomish, WA |
tshirt
Premium Member
2013-Oct-4 12:07 pm
Can you say......EXPENSIVE, boys and girls? Cause Mr Rodgers is pretty sure accounts from 4 providers, will likely be more $, than a premium account at 1 or 2. | |
|
| |
Re: Can you say...I expect this to be useful for rural DSL users, as getting 2 phone lines is normally a possibility, thus nearly doubling their capacity. Of course it costs 2x as much, but it's not a big deal if that's your only choice.
Depending on how configurable it is, it could be useful to pair a LTE connection with a slow DSL or cable connection as well. Even though LTE tends to be pretty expensive per GB, if the service is configured to use the landline connection for all the baseline possible and only switch to the wireless for surge needs, you might could keep your wireless usage at reasonable levels.
I'd just want the ability to easily switch the service off, as when you're doing something like online gaming, it'd only provide a worse experience. | |
|
tmh @comcastbusiness.net |
tmh
Anon
2013-Oct-4 1:25 pm
Assuming you can find more than one ISP servicing your areaSo, we have fiber and cable. Some places have only cable. Most places don't even have cable. What multihoming are they talking about? | |
|
| MxxCon join:1999-11-19 Brooklyn, NY |
MxxCon
Member
2013-Oct-4 2:59 pm
Re: Assuming you can find more than one ISP servicing your areayou can get 2 cable lines. you can get cable+dsl. you can get cable+fixed wireless. there are many different connections you can setup. | |
|
|
Check your Terms of ServiceMy guess is AT&T, Verizon, TimeWarner and the rest have considered this possibility... | |
|
|
|