 tubbynetreminds me of the danse russe
MVM
join:2008-01-16
Gilbert, AZ |
to markysharkey
Re: Bonded ADSLsaid by markysharkey:»www.pro-net.co.uk/connec ··· 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. |
|
| |
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. |
|
tubbynetreminds me of the danse russe
MVM
join:2008-01-16
Gilbert, AZ |
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. |
|
| |
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? |
|
cramer
Premium Member
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC Westell 6100
Cisco PIX 501
|
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.) |
|
| |
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. |
|
cramer
Premium Member
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC |
cramer
Premium Member
2013-Feb-6 3:55 pm
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.) |
|
| |
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! |
|
cramer
Premium Member
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC Westell 6100
Cisco PIX 501
|
cramer
Premium Member
2013-Feb-6 4:40 pm
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.) |
|
| |
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  |
|
