dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
751
share rss forum feed


quetwo
That VoIP Guy
Premium
join:2004-09-04
East Lansing, MI

Not quite how it works...

Unless he has Verizon's partnership, he won't get 300Mbps down on anything. Verizon has to bond the connections (aka load-balance), or data will only come in the route that requested it. Sure, he could load-balance the requests on his side, but he won't ever see more than 150 Mbps on one download.

Same theory when people "shotgunned" connections to the internet back in the dial-up days. ISPs that actually supported shotgunning (like NetCom) let you get "56k x 2", where others were "56k, but two connections". There was a difference.

Oh, and software routing is /slow/. He'd be much better off getting a used Juniper / Extreme / Cisco router that can do basic routing and NAT in ASICs.


Thinkdiff
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-07
Bronx, NY
kudos:11
said by quetwo:

Unless he has Verizon's partnership, he won't get 300Mbps down on anything. Verizon has to bond the connections (aka load-balance), or data will only come in the route that requested it. Sure, he could load-balance the requests on his side, but he won't ever see more than 150 Mbps on one download.

Not entirely true. He's using VPN bonding in a round robin configuration. I'm using a similar method (albeit over a single connection so that one download is actually equal to two connections - improves my download speeds at long distances).

You just need a VPN server and client that are setup with the same configuration. The server round robins the packets across the two separate tunnels and the client re-sequences them on the receiving side. Voila.. 300Mbps on a single download (theoretically).
--
University of Southern California - Fight On!

openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2
reply to quetwo
Hosted server, VPN, and MLPPP solves the problem.


fifty nine

join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
kudos:2
Just makes it even more impractical, and turns this from "Why?" into "WTF?"

Most home users really don't need more than about 10Mbps anyway. Sure it's fun to have 400Mbps in your home but content delivery technology and compression is getting better by the day negating the need for super fast connections.

openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2
I agree. When I was young and single, I actually contemplated a similar configuration using cable and DSL connections. It was more about bragging rights than anything. The bang for the buck wasn't sufficient for me so I dropped the idea.

Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
reply to fifty nine
said by fifty nine:

Most home users really don't need more than about 10Mbps anyway.

Can we fix this and say "fifty nine doesnt really need more than about 10Mbps anyway"?

That would be the correct way to post your personal need instead of trying to state fact for the greater population of internet users.

Or if you want to state your opinion for the world, then begin it with In my opinion.....


fifty nine

join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
kudos:2
said by Skippy25:

said by fifty nine:

Most home users really don't need more than about 10Mbps anyway.

Can we fix this and say "fifty nine doesnt really need more than about 10Mbps anyway"?

That would be the correct way to post your personal need instead of trying to state fact for the greater population of internet users.

Or if you want to state your opinion for the world, then begin it with In my opinion.....

No, most home users don't need more than 10Mbps today. This doesn't represent tech geeks on DSLR who "need" gigabit connections.

The most popular cable package here is 10Mbps. The cable co offers up to 100. Most people choose 10 or lower. Why? It's not worth the money. Sure if we were all getting gigabit for $40/month most people would get it, provided the lower packages weren't much less.

For most people, "internet" means facebook, e-mail, websurfing and netflix. You can even do that on a 5Mbps connection.

My own home connection is 50Mbps btw, I have a gigabit connection at work and I really don't notice the difference unless I'm transferring large files which doesn't happen often.


tenpin784
I Went To The Dark Side?

join:2001-03-30
Brierfield, AL
reply to quetwo
said by quetwo:

Unless he has Verizon's partnership, he won't get 300Mbps down on anything. Verizon has to bond the connections (aka load-balance), or data will only come in the route that requested it. Sure, he could load-balance the requests on his side, but he won't ever see more than 150 Mbps on one download.

Same theory when people "shotgunned" connections to the internet back in the dial-up days. ISPs that actually supported shotgunning (like NetCom) let you get "56k x 2", where others were "56k, but two connections". There was a difference.

Oh, and software routing is /slow/. He'd be much better off getting a used Juniper / Extreme / Cisco router that can do basic routing and NAT in ASICs.

If he uses a download manager and initiate multiple connections, he can get it. Some speedtest.net sites use multiple connections as well, hence how he got 300+ on the download.

Not to mention bittorrent and news sites use multiple connections as well, which he could round robin outbound so the requests come back over both links as well.

This is what I used to do with multiple connections, first starting with DD-WRT and moving on to Linux.
--
Dream as if you'll live forever, live as if you'll die today.

Disclaimer: These are MY comments, my employer cant be held responsible.

Wilsdom

join:2009-08-06
reply to fifty nine
It sounds like your cable franchise is Comcast, and speed is indeed largely irrelevant when usage is capped. But that's not real internet service.

Sammer

join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA

1 recommendation

reply to fifty nine
said by fifty nine:

Just makes it even more impractical, and turns this from "Why?" into "WTF?"

Most home users really don't need more than about 10Mbps anyway.

Maybe not today but what about in the near future. There are some medical applications being developed that are going to use a lot of bandwidth. It's going to be hard to say it's not needed when it could save your life.

watice

join:2008-11-01
New York, NY
reply to tenpin784
actually, the requests come back over one link, via a VPN, hence the 300mbit download speed. his posts explain a lot better, and thinkdiff mentions it above as well. Cool stuff.

jjeffeory

join:2002-12-04
USA
reply to quetwo
Thanks for pointing out the bonding issue...

jjeffeory

join:2002-12-04
USA
reply to fifty nine
Oye, 10Mbps? REALLY?
I guess it depends on how many people are using that single connection. I'd say 16Mbps would be the more reasonable number.

jjeffeory

join:2002-12-04
USA
reply to fifty nine
Heh, Comcast doesn't offer 10Mbps in DC anymore. I think they start at either 12Mbps or 16Mbps... I think the previous poster responding to you was correct.


ArrayList
DevOps
Premium
join:2005-03-19
Brighton, MA
reply to fifty nine
the internet wasn't built for "most people". it was built for engineers, by engineers.


cork1958
Cork
Premium
join:2000-02-26
reply to Skippy25
said by Skippy25:

said by fifty nine:

Most home users really don't need more than about 10Mbps anyway.

Can we fix this and say "fifty nine doesnt really need more than about 10Mbps anyway"?

That would be the correct way to post your personal need instead of trying to state fact for the greater population of internet users.

Or if you want to state your opinion for the world, then begin it with In my opinion.....

OK.

IMO,
Most people are dumber than a box of rocks and/or have no life!!

10Mbps might a little low to say that's good enough for everyone, but most faster speeds are only needed for home users that are like I just said above, dumber than a box of rocks, have no life and/or common sense!!

Just like the person being discussed in the article though, dumber than a box of rocks!! If the person being discussed doesn't run/own IBM or some such company, this is all about stupidity/greed/lack of common sense or just trying to get their 15 minutes of fame!
--
The Firefox alternative.
»www.mozilla.org/projects/seamonk ··· amonkey/

Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
Much better. Thank you.


houkouonchi

join:2002-07-22
Ontario, CA
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
reply to cork1958
said by cork1958:

OK.

IMO,
Most people are dumber than a box of rocks and/or have no life!!

10Mbps might a little low to say that's good enough for everyone, but most faster speeds are only needed for home users that are like I just said above, dumber than a box of rocks, have no life and/or common sense!!

Just like the person being discussed in the article though, dumber than a box of rocks!! If the person being discussed doesn't run/own IBM or some such company, this is all about stupidity/greed/lack of common sense or just trying to get their 15 minutes of fame!

Wow you are pretty damn rude. There are tons of things that you can do with a high speed connection. You ever tried to stream non-recompressed bluray rips over your 10 megabit connection with its 1mbit upload? I have friends family that stream things off me and I can handle several connections at once even with the highest bit-rate video.

What if you want to give back to the community by seeding torrents (not talking about just copyrighted content ones).

Also i have been giving some thought of now with the bandwidth I have of starting a business as I also happen to have a 48U rack that is only about half full right now and 150TB of disk space in it.
--
300/150 mbit Bonded Verizon FiOS connection FTW!