| 802.3ad (or now 802.3ax) Link Aggregation Long Question I am puzzled by the differing "statements" on the web that I'm finding relating to link aggregation. I have found definitive statements that it increases throughput, that it does not increase throughput, and it decreases throughput. What the heck is up with this?
I know Mushroom makes products that will "bond" or "bind" or "team" multiple links into one big pipe. Supposedly they can bind telco dsl, cable dsl, wireless, and maybe even dialup into one big pipe that will give you super speedy downloads, etc. One problem with that type of solution is it appears you have to install hardware on both ends of the connection. Not something that a small home/office business could afford. At least one other company can do the same type of thing but also requires h/w at both ends.
I am on "extended" dsl with centurylink and can get a MAX of 512k speed. I would like to be able to get multiple dsl lines from centurylink and bind them into one big pipe to get up to 3mbs or so speed.
To accomplish binding I believe I would need one pc (let's say it is running Ubuntu 10.11 Linux), at least two nics that support 802.3ad LACP, and one managed switch that also supports LACP.
My question is: When you use lacp and bind multiple links together, do you end up with a sum of all the links (or something close to the sum of all the links)? If I bind 4 links of 512Kbps, do I then have around 2mb of download speed using one pc or do I end up with the ability to have 4 pcs running downloads of 512kbps each?
I have seen this type of question answered both ways on the internet and I'm not even sure where I could go to get a really definitive answer.
Looking in Ubuntu documentation, I see this about link aggregation:
Quote:
It's primary use is to increase a network link speed beyond the limits of any single cable or port. Although it can also be used for failover, if one link dies all traffic to and from the machine should be routed to the remaining links.
Unquote
Again, I have seen comments on the web where someone did this and their download speed on one pc was almost equal to the sum of all the bonded links.
Which is correct? And can you suggest an internet source that I can learn more about this subject??
Any help would be appreciated. What I currently have is NOT broadband and I'm investigating ALL options to up the speed to something usable (like at least 2mp, preferably 3mb).
thanks, |
|
|
|
Bink
join:2006-05-14
Denver, CO
kudos:4 | IEEE 802.3ad Link Aggregation will not do what you want with your Internet connections. What you want is a multi-WAN router, similar to what Mushroom Networks or many other companies make, but, for the most part, you will not get a true 3Mbps out of these devices—you will just get some form of load balancing, with various degrees of sophistication and limitations. To get a true 3Mbps out of multiple links, you would need to use BGP (or MPPP or related protocols), but CenturyLink will likely not support this on these DSL links.
I’m afraid there isn’t a simple quality solution here outside of a “better pipe.” |
|
| Thanks for the response. I don't know about since it became "link" but before when it was centurytel, they did not support RFC1990 (mlppp).
But I'm still in search of a solution.
Is getting a bigger pipe delivered to my house out of the question? Or is it just a matter of money.
I've also thought about using a couple of Motorola Canopys and putting up an antenna and using my office downtown to beam faster internet out here. I may still go with that if I can't find anything else.
thanks again,
Harry |
|
Bink
join:2006-05-14
Denver, CO
kudos:4 | If higher-speed broadband service is not available in your area, I'm certain the local Telco will be more than happy to run a couple of T1 lines out to you, they'll just make you pay dearly for it. |
|
Reviews:
 ·link2voip
 ·TekSavvy DSL
| reply to OzarksHarry
My understanding is that you can do your own mlppp if you control both endpoints, ie, by way of a vpn tunnel. So if your office has good speed you could set up a vpn server there and use your own mlppp to bond tunnels over your several DSL lines.
A better solution (simpler and cheaper) would be a wireless backhaul, as you mentioned. Why rent a virtual private network when you can buy a real private network?
I've done plenty of Canopy installs and it works great, but I would recommend rather that you give Ubiquiti a try. Excellent performance at a much lower cost.
--
db |
|
| Thanks, it has been a while since I looked at wireless and had not heard of Ubiquiti. I've done a little searching now and do you think the Bullet2hp units will handle 6 miles as the crow flies? And how important is the antenna? Will I need something like this one?
»www.rowewireless.com/pacific-wir···nna-nfi/
thanks,
Harry |
|
Reviews:
·link2voip
·TekSavvy DSL
| If you have line of sight then 6 miles is not a problem. I have a few links at that distance or greater.
A pair of those panels you linked should be fine. Personally I use 5GHz exclusively, as there's way less noise on the band. My typical setup is Bullet M5 and this panel: »www.xagyl.com/store_ca/product.p···9&page=1
A handy tool for link calculation: »www.ubnt.com/airlink/
--
db |
|
| I see 5ghz is better. If for nothing else because of the decreased size of the fresnel zone. I'm finding that is a problem here in Southern Missouri. We have a LOT of hills and most of them seem to be in my way. Plus, I happen to reside in a little bit of a valley. More of a problem.
It looks like I'm going to have to get my antenna at least 60' up in the air. Maybe even a little more. I have to do some gps testing first.
You don't happen to have a recommendation on a reasonably priced tilt-over mast do you.
Thanks for the help. |
|
Reviews:
·link2voip
·TekSavvy DSL
| said by OzarksHarry:You don't happen to have a recommendation on a reasonably priced tilt-over mast do you.
I don't, sorry. 60' is a feat. :P
--
db |
|
