said by TSI Marc:or put another way. we've already spent months and months trying to get mlppp working properly and now, just abandon it?
like, the issue of supporting mlppp is long gone and decided on. we are doing mlppp. period. that's what we're doing.
People have gone and purchased hardware and spent time developing software and all sorts of things, to abandon them all now at this late stage? That's just not the TekSavvy way.
I'm going to buy some hardware, and I'm going to make MLPPP stable and I'm going to require that you purchase a static IP if you want to make use of MLPPP. If you don't want to drink that coolaid, that's ok. We have a solution for that also. Just disable MLPPP and you'll get served up on the brand spanking new E320 gear.
Either way you have options.
Once that fire is out, we are looking into VPN stuff, you can inform your followers of that if you'd like but first we need stable routers and that means that this comes first. I'm not the one who picked MLPPP instead of VPN... you all did, keep that in mind.
Keep MLPPP, it is always going to be useful for people with multiple links, and it may/may not be useful in the future for throttle evasion.
But I'd plan on a VPN solution, and I'd plan on it soon. If Bell doesn't start throttling MLPPP soon (amazed they haven't yet, I suppose they haven't perfected it) they will just outright ban it, at least SL-MLPPP. But they will never get away with banning VPN solutions.
The nice thing about VPN solutions is they're *way* better supported than MLPPP. People won't need to run linux emulators on windows, buy MLPPP-Tomato compatible routers, and run patched-to-hell PPP stacks on their favourite OSes. VPN solutions work on so many more things, from windows to linux to Unix to DD-WRT to etc... And they're proven.
You have the lazy option in the meantime of allowing port-forwarding to a socks proxy via SSH like some other places have done, but it is a sucky solution in comparison to VPN. But it probably requires less work on your end.
