dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
4079
share rss forum feed

markysharkey
Premium
join:2012-12-20
united kingd

Bonded ADSL

Evening all!

I have been asked to "sort out the internet" at a premises with 4 PSTN telephone lines, one of which carries ADSL. Due to distance / line condition etc the available download speed averages about 3 - 4 Mb/s.
My plan would be to initiate 3 more ADSL connections along the three other phone lines then bond them with the CPE. Currently they are sporting an 887 VDSL router. I have no idea what to specify in place of the 887. My thinking is probably too simple but I am leaning towards a 2901 with 4 x ADSL WIC cards and some fancy IOS jiggery pokery. But there has to be a better way!!! I look forward to your suggestions.
In anticipation, no, leased lines are a non starter and so is EFM.
--
Binary is as easy as 01 10 11

aryoba
Premium,MVM
join:2002-08-22
kudos:4

1 recommendation

Most likely, bonded ADSL (if there is such a thing) won't work as you intended. Of course, speaking to any local ISP would be the best route to decide whether you can get some alternate solutions for faster connectivity.

cramer
Premium
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
kudos:9

1 recommendation

reply to markysharkey
Yes, too simple... »www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collate···3807.pdf The 2901 can only have *2* DSL modules. And your solution is exceptionally expensive (if using new hardware... 2901 @ $1300, 4 EHWIC-VA-DSL's @ $600 each... they don't sell HWIC-1ADSL's anymore, apparently) And what you'd end up with is not "bonding", but "load balancing" (load sharing, etc.) -- any single connection will only cross one link.

True bonding, like the old netopia R3232 IDSL router, requires the ISP set it up. (and I'm 99.999% sure they aren't going to bother.)

(The same thing can be done for a few hundred with a PC.)

markysharkey
Premium
join:2012-12-20
united kingd
reply to markysharkey
Thankfully price is not an issue. I need bonding rather than per session load balancing which is currently already in place and not working very well. The issue I have is that a specific device in the LAN is looking for a consistent 5Mb of download capacity which the single ADSL line just can't provide. The installed option is a satellite broadband service but speeds are er... inconsistent at best, and with a monthly bill approaching US$2000 the 2901 + 4 port WIC isn't that expensive!
A Google of UK ISP's shows any number apparently offering the type of thing I am looking for which is fine, but they all supply a router of some sort. I would prefer to keep the infrastructure all Cisco if possible so that I get to learn a new skill as well as add value to our support for our customers. I also do not want to introduce "consumer-alike" type devices into an all enterprise grade LAN.

--
Binary is as easy as 01 10 11

markysharkey
Premium
join:2012-12-20
united kingd
reply to markysharkey
»www.pro-net.co.uk/connectivity/b···adsl.php

I don't like the look of the router much but I have no really good reason why. I would prefer a piece of Cisco hardware.
If they can do what they claim, this is exactly the sort of thing I am after, and there are loads of them here in Blighty.
--
Binary is as easy as 01 10 11


tubbynet
reminds me of the danse russe
Premium,MVM
join:2008-01-16
Chandler, AZ
kudos:1
said by markysharkey:

»www.pro-net.co.uk/connectivity/b···adsl.php

I don't like the look of the router much but I have no really good reason why. I would prefer a piece of Cisco hardware.
If they can do what they claim, this is exactly the sort of thing I am after, and there are loads of them here in Blighty.

"bonded" adsl requires the use of mlppp.
if you're going to go down this route -- i would suggest running (4) unique dsl modems -- passing everything to a router with (4) ethernet handoffs -- and running pppoe on the router.

q.
--
"...if I in my north room dance naked, grotesquely before my mirror waving my shirt round my head and singing softly to myself..."

cramer
Premium
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
kudos:9
reply to markysharkey
That's still not "bonding" -- that's vpn tunnel tricks. Real bonding is done at layer-1 by multiplexing/interleaving the atm cells, or fragmenting and multiplexing frames (but nobody runs frame-relay anymore); this requires support at both ends -- DSLAM and CPE. Now, one can simulate that at higher levels, but it adds measurable latency, and I've never seen it work to my satisfaction.

The pronet solution sounds exactly like LACP, PAgP, or etherchannel over the internet; and that doesn't give you "additive bandwidth." However, I am curious to see how well the pro-net setup works.

MLPPP gets you there, but has it's own headaches, esp. with PPP fragmentation. CEF per-packet load balancing will also do it (and is my recommendation), but requires Cisco hardware at both ends -- and you won't have control over the ISP side.

(For the record, over the years, I've done all of these. I'd do cef per-packet, or a Larscom Mega-T (i.e. L1 hardware at both ends.))

markysharkey
Premium
join:2012-12-20
united kingd
All received guys.
I will ask some pointed question of the provider and see if I can tease out some real answers.
WRT the "PPP trickery", whilst not a "pure" solution, if it gets me the bandwidth then so be it. And as it seems I am somewhat limited because of the co-operation of the ISP then I guess I have gone from appearing to have some sort of choice to almost no choice. C'est la vie, as we say here in London town...
--
Binary is as easy as 01 10 11

aryoba
Premium,MVM
join:2002-08-22
kudos:4
reply to markysharkey
said by markysharkey:

Thankfully price is not an issue.

If the price is not an issue, why didn't you consider "real circuit" such as DS-3, E-3, or Unprotected Wave? I'm sure any local ISP in UK could provide these kind of circuits.

markysharkey
Premium
join:2012-12-20
united kingd
reply to tubbynet
My provider has just got back to me to offer exactly this; 3 Thomson or Zyxel ADSL routers connected to a "bonding device" which connects with a single cable to the LAN.
They say:
quote:
The bonding is packet-based, not session based (session based is known as load balancing).

So when a file is sent, it is distributed across all of the lines, rather than picking which one is the best at the time (thereby limiting the speed to 1 line).

On our bonded, a single file will be sent or received at the total speed of all of the lines combined.

I would appreciate your thoughts on their response.
--
Binary is as easy as 01 10 11

markysharkey
Premium
join:2012-12-20
united kingd
reply to aryoba
Aryoba,

Yup, we have laid fibre from the premises to the local distribution point. We're waiting for the ISP to pull 2Km of fibre at a cost to us of 18K sterling. The promised delivery was November 2012. Last update was two weeks ago with a rather non descript "there are blockages in the trunking underground" and no completion date is being offered. The customer is >18K down and getting on for 4 months since order inception and is stil sitting on a 3Mb ADSL connection. We need to do something to improve the customers speed whilst we await the magic of a man with a shovel...
--
Binary is as easy as 01 10 11

aryoba
Premium,MVM
join:2002-08-22
kudos:4
If the premise is dense metro area that served by multiple ISP and has built or mature infrastructures, perhaps you could switch to different ISP that could deliver the circuit sooner with confirmed delivery date. Using ISP that already has presence in the premise would certainly leverage the situation.

markysharkey
Premium
join:2012-12-20
united kingd
Sadly it's a remote area with very poor infrastructure, hence why we (well, the customer eventually) is shelling out for his own dedicated fibre from the local exchange to the premises.
I have a little (very little) sympathy for the ISP as underground issues cannot be forseen, BUT I do also question how other services are performing now we know an underground issue exists that may be impacting on the cables that are already present in the duct. I also question the wisdom of the apparent lack of periodic inspections that may have brought this to light earlier.
--
Binary is as easy as 01 10 11


tubbynet
reminds me of the danse russe
Premium,MVM
join:2008-01-16
Chandler, AZ
kudos:1
reply to markysharkey
said by markysharkey:

My provider has just got back to me to offer exactly this; 3 Thomson or Zyxel ADSL routers connected to a "bonding device" which connects with a single cable to the LAN.
They say:

quote:
The bonding is packet-based, not session based (session based is known as load balancing).

So when a file is sent, it is distributed across all of the lines, rather than picking which one is the best at the time (thereby limiting the speed to 1 line).

On our bonded, a single file will be sent or received at the total speed of all of the lines combined.

I would appreciate your thoughts on their response.

tunnel tricks.
they don't support mlppp. if you pressure them -- ask about bring your own router -- and what is required as you don't want to use their cpe.
if they say as long as you can support -- then its fine.

however -- i don't think thats the case.

q.
--
"...if I in my north room dance naked, grotesquely before my mirror waving my shirt round my head and singing softly to myself..."

markysharkey
Premium
join:2012-12-20
united kingd
Yup, I have already asked if I can use my own kit. Now I'll hit them with MLPPP and see what they say.
BUT... what's wrong with tunnel trickery IF it gives me the bandwidth as they suggest?
--
Binary is as easy as 01 10 11

cramer
Premium
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
kudos:9
reply to markysharkey
That's not going to end well... each line has it's own speed, error rate, and latency. Round-robin packet spreading will end up with very nasty out-of-order packets (at best), and random packets lost here and there. It may be your only solution, but *I* wouldn't do it with a gun to my head.

(I recall the mess from Cabletron's "parallel links" aggregation. It took two weeks to get an engineer to admit it's PARALLEL... the links MUST be equal distance (within a few feet) or it won't work; it'll reassemble ethernet frames as a jumble. So, using A and B sides of a fiber ring absolutely won't work -- fragments arrive micro seconds out of sequence. TCP packets have sequence numbers, so they can be put back in order, but a continuous out-of-order stream is a hell of a mess.)

markysharkey
Premium
join:2012-12-20
united kingd
Thanks Cramer and the rest of you guys. All useful ammo for my no doubt lengthy call to my provider tomorrow.

As always your thoughts have been most helpful. Lets see what tomorrow brings.
--
Binary is as easy as 01 10 11

cramer
Premium
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
kudos:9
If they're putting the "packet shotgun" at both ends of your links, then it might not be so bad. At least the OOO problem will be localized to their boxes, and one would assume they'd be getting that right (or they wouldn't be in business.)

markysharkey
Premium
join:2012-12-20
united kingd
The only issue with OOO packet delivery is there are several internet TV devices (Kartina TV) running and they soak up bandwidth like a... well... something that soaks up bandwidth! To give you an idea, they have chewed through 33Gb (yes thirty three gigabits) of data since Monday, and that was this mornings count, which is now 12 hours out of date!
--
Binary is as easy as 01 10 11

cramer
Premium
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
kudos:9
If that's via UDP... you're about to see something really interesting.

(I had a professor at NCSU once ask me to "use UDP because of all the overhead in TCP"... well, I piped "ls" into this udp per-character framer. What came out the other side was, as you'd expect with no sequence assurance, COMPLETE GIBBERISH. It was funny as hell, 'tho -- I knew how to do it right, but that's recreating 90% of TCP.)

markysharkey
Premium
join:2012-12-20
united kingd
I can't imagine it'll be TCP but I will check.
I'm sure it will be interesting, but I suspect my customer won't share my enthusiasm for interesting packet behaviour
--
Binary is as easy as 01 10 11

public

join:2002-01-19
Santa Clara, CA
reply to markysharkey
said by markysharkey:

My plan would be to initiate 3 more ADSL connections along the three other phone lines then bond them with the CPE. Currently they are sporting an 887 VDSL router. I have no idea what to specify in place of the 887.

Another name for bonded adsl is metroe. It comes with bonding modem. Get a quote from a vendor in the b2b forum.


Paulg
Displaced Yooper
Premium
join:2004-03-15
Neenah, WI
kudos:1
Metro-E is nowhere near the same thing as bonded ADSL.

aryoba
Premium,MVM
join:2002-08-22
kudos:4
reply to public
Metro-E is typically consisted of Unprotected Wave or MPLS-type circuits, which as Paulg See Profile stated, was nowhere near bonded ADSL.

public

join:2002-01-19
Santa Clara, CA
said by aryoba:

Metro-E is typically consisted of Unprotected Wave or MPLS-type circuits, which as Paulg See Profile stated, was nowhere near bonded ADSL.

At the physical level the implementation may be bonded adsl. What you discuss is higher level transport.

aryoba
Premium,MVM
join:2002-08-22
kudos:4
I wonder how Unprotected Wave is considered higher level transport that rides on bonded ADSL as physical level; care to elaborate public See Profile ?

markysharkey
Premium
join:2012-12-20
united kingd
reply to markysharkey
My provider coughed up! It's a GRE tunnel bonded through an Xrio UBM400 (»www.xrio.com/products/ubm-400).
I've asked about OOO / packet loss issues specifically for downloading streamed content at 5Mb/s. They're getting back to me...
And yes I realise that if each line condition varies by enough (SNR etc) then it'll probably never work for the intended type of use. But that's fine. Better to tell the customer it is not viable than deploy and find out the hard way...

--
Binary is as easy as 01 10 11


battleop

join:2005-09-28
00000
reply to markysharkey
"Thankfully price is not an issue."

Then order a real circuit like a DS3 or Metro Ethernet circuit. If you need just 5Mb find a provider that can do MLPPP over E1s.
--
I do not, have not, and will not work for AT&T/Comcast/Verizon/Charter or similar sized company.

markysharkey
Premium
join:2012-12-20
united kingd
quote:
Yup, we have laid fibre from the premises to the local distribution point. We're waiting for the ISP to pull 2Km of fibre at a cost to us of 18K sterling. The promised delivery was November 2012. Last update was two weeks ago with a rather non descript "there are blockages in the trunking underground" and no completion date is being offered. The customer is >18K down and getting on for 4 months since order inception and is stil sitting on a 3Mb ADSL connection. We need to do something to improve the customers speed whilst we await the magic of a man with a shovel...
No MLPPP support at the exchange, and EFM is tested as giving a max of 4Mb/s from two different providers.

--
Binary is as easy as 01 10 11

aryoba
Premium,MVM
join:2002-08-22
kudos:4
reply to markysharkey
said by markysharkey:

Aryoba,

Yup, we have laid fibre from the premises to the local distribution point. We're waiting for the ISP to pull 2Km of fibre at a cost to us of 18K sterling. The promised delivery was November 2012. Last update was two weeks ago with a rather non descript "there are blockages in the trunking underground" and no completion date is being offered. The customer is >18K down and getting on for 4 months since order inception and is stil sitting on a 3Mb ADSL connection. We need to do something to improve the customers speed whilst we await the magic of a man with a shovel...

Hopefully the customer didn't blame you for the ISP inability to meet deadline. I assume the ISP provided some kind of compensation, such as first 6-month free of charge