[AusNOG] ADSL2+ Aggregation at LNS without MLPPP HOWTO
Joseph Goldman
joe at apcs.com.au
Mon Sep 15 08:05:25 EST 2014
Very interesting idea - I have used Mikrotik with Cisco LNS trying
MLPPP, where mostly I was lucky to re-achieve the results of a single
line. It was production LNS so I didn't want to do too much changing to
'fiddle', but separate PPP with EoIP and bonding over the top is quite
interesting.
You say your using Mikrotik each end, are you using "balance rr" bonding
type to get even throughput? Or are you still using say 802.3ad with
Layer2/3 hashing (i.e. per flow balancing rather than per packet).
On 14/09/14 23:46, Andrew Cox wrote:
> /"bringing up three EOIP tunnels (one on each ADSL) to a server you
> control with an additional /30 routed to it. Then bridge the three
> tunnels on both ends"/
> /
> /
> This is achievable and nets the required gains in upload/download.
>
> Source: I've done it.. http://i.imgur.com/eVNPPxA.png - this is a graph
> of 4 x ADSL2+ services (quite close to an exchange so good sync rates)
> bonded together back to another router about 40ms away. The data rates
> speak for themselves. Oh and this is using MikroTik gear at both ends.
>
> - Andrew
>
> On 13 September 2014 07:26, Damien Gardner Jnr <rendrag at rendrag.net
> <mailto:rendrag at rendrag.net>> wrote:
>
> What about bringing up three EOIP tunnels (one on each ADSL) to a
> server you control with an additional /30 routed to it. Then bridge
> the three tunnels on both ends, and drop the two IP's on the /30 on
> each end of the bridged tunnel, and NAT your workstation out that IP?
>
> Of course that's assuming Annex M isn't available on your exchange ;)
>
> On 13 September 2014 00:57, Ben Cooper <ben at zeno.io
> <mailto:ben at zeno.io>> wrote:
>
> But what if we really need the upload bandwidth? (ie id take the
> downstream hit if it means my upstream is improved greatly.)
>
> Backstory:
>
> In my spare time, I stream myself playing games either casually
> or competitively up to twitch. although latley None(read: 3) of
> my ADSL connections have had the upstream to realiably stream.
>
> I have been hunting for a way to join the 3 of them to try get
> the upload I need to stream again, without any luck. I run
> PFsense as core routing, but have some microtiks here i can toss
> in, if it means i can get better upload.
>
> Else im going to have to get a microwave connection installed.
>
> i am currently for the last week using 4G prepaid dongles and
> just dropping $100 on the tesltra plan and then spending it all
> on datapack right away, netting about 8-10 gb of data.
>
> If anyone has any suggestions to try, I am all ears.
>
> TLDR: I need more upload, badly.
>
> On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 8:48 PM, Jarrad Mitchell
> <ausnog at outlook.com.au <mailto:ausnog at outlook.com.au>> wrote:
>
> /I would expect that any form of 'single ip' ADSL Bonding is
> impractical for you. If you must, you are best of to use
> Per-Destination Load Balancing with two separate ISPs, and
> perhaps route specific services through the better link. /
>
> /
> /
> */What follows is the technical reasoning and logical
> analysis that lead to the aforementioned conclusion/*
> */
> /*
> /
> /
> *_Why 'Bonding / Teaming Aggregating' two ADSL etc links is
> usually a Very Bad Idea _*
> *_
> _*
> ALL NETWORK INTERFACE (Including ADSL)
> 'Aggregation/Bonding/Teaming' that results in increased
> throughput across a single path (a connection between two
> computers/IPs eg your home pc to youtube.com
> <http://youtube.com>) almost always results in a link that
> is at best just below TWICE the speed of the SLOWEST link.
>
> This is not always a problem. For example, if you have two
> 100mbit fibre optic links over 1km, they are very unlikely
> to vary in their 'transmission' properties; that is to say,
> they are unlikely to vary considerably in how long it takes
> to ping the other end etc. With a connection like this,
> where BOTH of the Aggregate / Team 'members' can be
> described as electrically/physically 'identical /
> significantly similar', a good quality, reliable increase in
> performance can be achieved.
>
>
> *_Key Insight 1_: Multiple Link Aggregates that increase
> Single Path Throughput ONLY EVER make sense when using
> IDENTICAL Aggregate Members.*
> */
> /*
> Knowing this, we next need to consider why ADSL Technology
> was developed. Simply put, it was designed to leverage
> EXISTING, VERY OLD Balanced Transmission Line to deliver
> 'high speed' internet access. And it does a wonderful job
> indeed. But just what exactly is this existing
> infrastructure? The PTSN is/has in most cases (if not all):
>
> - Based on old _two pair non twisted transmission line_ that
> was never designed for data.
> - Had previous network modifications (been connected and
> disconnected, redesigned etc)
> - Been previously upgraded (Pulse to DTMF Dialing for example)
> - Been previously re-purposed (ISDN)
> - Been expanded well beyond its original design,
> inconsistantly (Loading Coils, Pair Gain Systems & RIMS).
>
>
> *_Key Insight 2_: Any Two Pairs between an Exchange and the
> Customer are VERY UNLIKELY to be 'identical / significantly
> similar'.*
> *
> *
> Some people might wish to point out that EFM / SHDSL &
> Similar use exactly the above to deliver a good service.
> And they're right, from a delivered service (Marketing?)
> perspective. /Remember how I pointed out that a Aggregate
> will run at the speed of its slowest member? EFM & SHDSL
> simply takes a bunch of pairs, and deliberately uses less
> bandwidth on all of them them than even the poorest can
> handle, then combines them. /
>
> I have personally seen 8 PAIRS (16 wires) used to deliver
> 10mbit / 10mbit EFM! To put this into perspective, a single
> near ideal pair can deliver 20mbit Simplex (one way) over
> 1Km using only 2MHz of bandwidth. VDSL2+ over 500m, with
> its increased bandwidth would greatly exceed that!
>
> *_Key Insight 3_: YOU CAN make a bunch of DISSIMILAR
> (electrically) Links look Similar (logically) if you are
> prepared to make individual BANDWIDTH SACRIFICES.*
> *
> *
> /
> /
> *_Conclusion_*
> /And there in lies the reality. At say $30 per pair, it
> doesn't make sense economically to Aggregate a 18000/900
> Kbps pair with a 9000/850 Kbps pair. Because to do so
> reliably, you're likely to end up with 17000 / 1600 Kbps!!!!/
> /
> /
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net <mailto:AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net>
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>
>
>
>
> --
> --
> Ben Cooper
> CEO
> Zeno Holdings PTY LTD
> P: +61 7 3503 8553 <tel:%2B61%207%203503%208553>
> M: 0410411301 <tel:0410411301>
> E: ben at zeno.io <mailto:ben at zeno.io>
> W: _http://zeno.io_
>
> _______________________________________________
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net <mailto:AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net>
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Damien Gardner Jnr
> VK2TDG. Dip EE. GradIEAust
> rendrag at rendrag.net <mailto:rendrag at rendrag.net> -
> http://www.rendrag.net/_
> _--
> We rode on the winds of the rising storm,
> We ran to the sounds of thunder.
> We danced among the lightning bolts,
> and tore the world asunder
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net <mailto:AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net>
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>
More information about the AusNOG
mailing list