[AusNOG] ADSL2+ Aggregation at LNS without MLPPP HOWTO
s
s.sentient at gmail.com
Mon Sep 15 15:11:15 EST 2014
I've accomplished something similar to Andrew using Zeroshell and VPN
Bonding (http://www.zeroshell.org/load-balancing-failover/#vpn-bonding).
I did it for the same reasons as Ben (twitch streaming), it worked well
enough, I was using two ADSL2 connections with 2 IPs on the other end and
static routes to properly send the traffic down both pipes.
The setup was only in use when I was streaming so I can't attest to it's
long-term reliability, but the download/upload speed was the expected
combined speed with a little overhead.
On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 6:05 AM, Joseph Goldman <joe at apcs.com.au> wrote:
> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20140915/8dad6b49/attachment.html>
More information about the AusNOG
mailing list