Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Internet

Multiple Broadband Connections at Home? 47

Posted by Cliff from the hardware-bonding-solutions dept.
Another Web Monkey asks: "I am a typical geek. After working all day on the computer, I come home and get right back on the internet. But unlike my corporate office, I don't have multiple internet connections. I know there are others not happy with a single DSL/Cable connection, but can't afford T1's. Some dual broadband routers are starting to appear on the market. I want to know what others are doing to satisfy, even if temporarily, their cravings for faster connections at home? Has anyone tried these routers, or have another solution?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Multiple Broadband Connections at Home? More

Multiple Broadband Connections at Home?

Comments Filter:
  • I moved to a place where almost nobody (probably no one at all) has a cable modem. I didn't do this to get more bandwidth, rather, it was a rather pleasant side effect. I went from inconsistent high speeds to a constantly fast connection. It's like having my own T-1 line without all the equipment.
    • Really a T1 isn't a bunch of equipment... the CSU/DSU is analgous to your cable modem, and then you need some sort of router, same as a cable modem. The only difference is that they use a (pricey) serial interface to the router last I checked.

      The telco might put in a little box with some cards in it, but that's owned by them, so you don't need to mess with it.

      Sangoma [sangoma.com] makes an internal PCI CSU/DSU that is completely compatible with Linux (open source drivers in the kernel).

      If you use this, you can have CSU/DSU, firewall, and router all in one Linux box. Just plug the raw T1 right into the Linux box and it comes up as a network interface. We've had one of these running 2 years with no trouble at all.

      They weren't cheap when we bought ours (About $800), but then again, CSU/DSUs can be pricey too unless you can pick one up used, and last I checked, most CSU/DSUs made you use exotic serial cables (RS-422?) to connect to your router, which must support said exotic serial interface.

  • Won't work as some people might expect (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 24, 2002 @05:31AM (#4742330)
    Several internet connections can be used to spread the load of different logical connections (two downloads for example), but unless the provider actively supports it, you can't use them to speed up one download. Download managers can help by splitting the file into separately downloadable parts, but it won't be "like one connection". Providers will most likely not support "broadband channel bundling" because they could simply configure the broadband interface to the double speed to achieve the same effect (but they don't).
    • The hardware link in the main article has gotten bad reviews. Check around.

      Mod this parent up, as they are correct. However, you can do as one post said, which is have a colo box, you can follow this example:
      http://lartc.org/howto/lartc.loadshare.h tml

      If you don't have access to a colo box, you can spread the load of different logical connections.

      I've done this under linux. You will use Advanced IP routing. iproute2
      Here is the URL howto:
      http://lartc.org/howto/lartc.rpdb.multiple -links.h tml

      Note the last portion about Load Balancing.
      It basically associates a destination IP address with a connection, so you get some packets going out one interface and some going out another interface. Not the best solution, but Cable Modem and DSL providers aren't offering full BGP peering.

  • Could be worse! (Score:3, Funny)

    by the-real-wormz ( 253964 ) on Sunday November 24, 2002 @05:52AM (#4742376)
    Well my friend, think of a worst case scenario, you live in outback Australia and your lightning fast 56K barely reaches 28.8, that's when billy bob down the road hasn't tractored over the phone line or town fiber link, or your modem hasn't been hit by lightning for like the eigth time :) Still think your DSL/Cable connection bites?

  • I was thinking about this (Score:4, Informative)

    by Pathwalker ( 103 ) <hotgrits@yourpants.net> on Sunday November 24, 2002 @06:05AM (#4742396) Homepage Journal
    When I noticed that the FreBSD user mode ppp package supports both PPP over TCP/IP and multilink, the following idea popped into my head:

    • Get two broadband conenctions
    • Get a firewall box (Fred) with three ethernet cards
    • Acquire 3 ip addresses (A, B, C) on a co-located box (Carl)
    • Hook the two ISP connections to Fred.A and Fred.B configure Fred.A as the route for Carl.A, and Fred.B as the route for Carl.B.
    • Hook Fred.C to the lan
    • run multilink PPP over TCP/IP between Fred and Carl, with Carl.C as the assigned IP address. Use that as the default route for the LAN, with NAT to map internal IP addresses onto Carl.C.


    In theory, this should give me a faster connection, that should withstand an outage of one of the two ISPs.

    All I've done towards trying this out has been to get both a cable modem and a DSL connection. Right now, I have two NAT firewalls set up, and I have different boxes configured to use one or the other as the default route.

    Even with a crude system like this for splitting the load over the connections, it still has been worth it to be able to run two scps at once when I have to upload a couple of hundred megs to my remote box.

    • Re:I was thinking about this (Score:5, Informative)

      by droyad ( 412569 ) on Sunday November 24, 2002 @08:14AM (#4742621)
      Good idea, wrong technology

      Multi-link PPP must be configured on both sides of the connection, you can't have Multi-link PPP to share a connection to two different ISPs.

      Would would work is having a multi-homed host with 1 connection to the LAN and two to the internet. The NAT firewall would have to be configured with 2 external IP addresses and be programmed to load ballance.

      Remember you will have 2 global IP addresses. This means that if you only have one connection open, only one of the links can be ever used. This is because of the way TCP works, it uses the global IP address to identify a connection. So it would not be possible to download a large file over both connections sumiltaniously.

      • Re:I was thinking about this (Score:1, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Reread Pathwalker's comment. Pay attention to the part where he writes about a co-located box called "Carl".
      • Yes, Multi-link PPP on both sides. He said PPP over TCP/IP, not PPP over serial or PPPoE. You'd run a PPP server on Carl (the colo box) and your multi-linked PPP connection gets the address of Carl's third IP.

    • Another solution... (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Per Wigren ( 5315 )
      Move to Sweden. Get 10 megabit full duplex, uncapped, for $35/month.

      • I used to have a connection like that at home a couple of years ago - I was on TCI's testbed network to see how much traffic a cable modem network could handle.

        No caps, same speeds up and down - the full amount the modem could handle, servers were encouraged, and they wanted us to push as many bits as we could.

        I miss that - too bad I had to move...
  • I can't seem to find a ref, but iirc some linux ethernet drivers support bridging. (2 cards, one IP)

    They were fancy-ass cards though, and they needed the same kind of card on the other end. Not very usefull as a home solution, I guess.

    You might consider going back to school and living in res....

    • Re:Bridged ethernet. (Score:3, Informative)

      by droyad ( 412569 )
      Bridging is the process of connecting two networks to each other transparently. What you are talking avout is teaming. It is taking two NICs and "joining" them together to provide double the bandwidth. This is achieved by having a switch that supports teaming and adapters that support this, usually have to be the same.

  • Whatever you do (Score:3, Informative)

    by Smidge204 ( 605297 ) on Sunday November 24, 2002 @07:09AM (#4742501) Journal
    Don't uncap your cable modem! [slashdot.org] (It's a federal offence!)

    =Smidge=

  • DSL can be faster (Score:2, Interesting)

    by mnmn ( 145599 )

    The usual home connection is 1.2mbps down and 256k upload. Ive see SDSL thats 3.2 mbps up and 3.2 mbps download. Since this is theoretically faster than a T1 and cheap for not requiring a local loop + CSU/DSU, I'll say its worth the geek's craving. A T1 last time i checked was about $600 per month. This should be that price too but it gives more speed.

    By simply getting a better upload speed, you'll notice a difference and major improvement.. eg 1.2/512 vs 1.2/128.

    Thirdly.. just remember the time when 9600 bytes per second was good.. and cherish this connection. Remember when 14.4 modem was awesome?Remember the first time popping in windows 3.1 into the comp with a pile of floppies?? Take it from me man, leave the p2p crap alone, download stable versions instead of nightly snapshots and put your focus on your linux box.
    • 14.4? Hell when I started, 300 baud was the norm. I had an MPP modem for my Atari 800, and that could go to 450 baud which was the shit, especially since no one could afford those awesome, $1000+ 1200 baud modems!!
      • Back in the late 80's or early 90's, I acquired a simplex 300 baud modem setup once. It required two phone lines: one line for sending data, and the other for receiving data. The thing was in a large metal case, about the size and dimensions of a 12-pack of soda.

  • It's not just the speed... (Score:3, Informative)

    by infojunkie ( 96487 ) on Sunday November 24, 2002 @09:28AM (#4742746)
    It's also about staying connected.

    I've been using @home (now Shaw) in Vancouver for about 5 years. The last 2 years, I've also had ADSL. They are both business packages, but Shaw couldn't offer any kind of uptime guarantee.

    In my area cable is twice as fast as DSL, but Shaw enforces download limits strictly, whereas Telus (phone co.) doesn't... at all. This is important to me for both my business and my personal usage/surfing habits.

    When you're supporting clients remotely, telling them that you can't do much (or anything) for them because your connection is down doesn't cut it. When you're in the middle of a remote backup, VNC or SSH session adminning a client's box and all of a sudden everything stops, they don't care. They want the job done.

    As fast as the cable is, it is also down more frequently than DSL. Here anyway. So I let my wife and kid run their boxes off it while I run primarily off DSL, switch or sharing as the need arises.

    For what it's worth, I run 2 seperate trimmed down linux boxen as router/firewalls with SSH tunneling VNC for remote admin when I'm out, as well as NATing to internal boxes for web and mail services.
    Box A: Cable: 2 NICs, 1 in, 1 out.
    Box B: DSL: 3 NICs, 1 in, 1 out DSL, 1 out to 2nd Cable IP.
    Dlink 10/100 24port Switch in the middle.

    Since neither Shaw nor Telus have dropped simultaneously, I haven't been down in close to 2 years.

  • Call up and get a business account (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    This is an easy solution. You call up your telco and say you want to setup a business account, and you want a bandwidth of for your setup. They *will* do it for you. They will charge you money for it, but they *will* gladly do it to take your money. You're already willing to get a second DSL line to pump up your rate, so you should be willing to get a real connection.

    Hint: business guys also get damned better service than home users when things go wrong.

    Unless of course, you *aren't* willing to pay more, and were just looking for someone to post instructions on how to uncap your modem. In that case, fuck off.

    • Actually, busniess accounts arent as good as home accounts. I recently tried to get business account because the home accounts were being issued where I live. They told me that they rather not sell a business account to a home, because business tend to use less bandwidth then homes and the cost is more email and serving business pages and not downloading mp3's and movies. Hence if you want more bandwidth stick with home account. strange eh
  • (I'm making the assumption you're currently on cable.)

    Stop and think for a second here. If you're not using a capped modem, then if you get a second connection all you're doing is paying your cable company more.

    If you're modem is uncapped then you're getting all the available speed that is shared across your node. If you buy two modems, and thus have two connections you will be competing with yourself for a connection--it won't be any faster.

    This can be done just don't get the same type of service. One DSL connection and one Cable connection, or two DSL connections.

    • Yep, you'd be competing with yourself, but what's the 'uncapped' cable modem top speed? 10mb/s?

      somewhere i read that the bandwdith used on the cable is 40mb/s. if that's so, you'd see some improvement on doing that.

      of course, it wouldn't be any more stable...
      • If you have dsl then you will be in a budle of 50-20 if you have two connections in the same bundle then you arnt going to see any increase in bandwidth when all your neibours are on the net because you will still have to share with 48 other people. Maybe their is a minimum bandwidth per dsl adapter but i wouldnt count on it. i would check the service gaurantee before sending off any more money.
  • For the longest time, I've wanted to get a 100 Mbps Cogent [cogentco.com] line ($3,000 month if you're reselling it) and share it with my neighbors. The math actually seems to work out -- if I can get 60 people to pay me $50/month, I'll break even. (I'm not looking to make money, just a way to reduce the pain of having a 100 Mbps line...) I could use 802.11b to give them 11 Mbps (up or download), and maybe, for $100/month, use 802.11a for 54-72 Mbps. (Keep in mind that this is 'broadband' -- I'm not guaranteeing anyone that they'll be able to use the whole 72 Mbps that 'Turbo' 802.11a offers...)

    I'm convinced that if Cogent ever starts providing lines in my area, I'd be able to do this without losing too much money. Has anyone tried anything of this sort?

    • Here in Seattle I can get a 10Mb (up and down) wireless connection for $360 a month. Haven't been able to justify it yet, but maybe someday...! :)
    • Well good luck. I asked them about a line, and I'm about a mile away from the university of pennsylvania, who has a 1gb line from cogent, so I know their network is in my part of the city. The email response I got? some guy from psinet (a cogent company tm) offering me a t-3 for 10 grand a month. Some people seem to be getting these crazy prices, but I had no luck. the guy still hasn't responded to my email asking him what happened to the prices on their website.
      • That's insane; the prices are listed on the main page of their site; I'm not aware of anyone paying more. Advertising 100 Mbps for 1 grand a month then offering half of it for 10 grand a month... is insane. *would like to think that maybe you e-mailed the wrong people, but knows it's unlikely*

  • why isn't it possible to use BGP?? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mcdade ( 89483 ) on Sunday November 24, 2002 @02:42PM (#4744118)
    It seems odd that home users can't do similar things with a unix/linux box that ISP's have been doing for over 5 yrs. Why isn't there an easy way to use BGP or some other gateway protocol to have a unix box set up to use two (or more) connections?? It seems rather odd, cause i have worked with the nexland router and it doesn't line balance, you either have two outbound routes (uses all bandwidth on one then flips to the the next line for other requests) or just works as failover, so that if one line goes down the second one comes up.

    The way TCP/IP was built you should be able to route any packet out any of the interfaces at any given time, this would give you the ability to balance load between lines, and the returning data would be coming back thru either of the given lines...

    where's the technology to do this??

    -b
    • You can do this.
      First to use BGP you must have a block of 16 C class's (a /20) either from ARIN ($2500 per year) or from one of your ISPs (variable rates)

      This is the smallest block that the internets border routers will 'see' a BGP route for.
      Anything smaller will be ignored and you will not be able to reach those networks.

      Next you need both ISPs to add your ASN number to their routers so the internet as a whole knows there are more than one route to you.

      As i seriously doubt you have anything above a personal cable/dsl account, they are going to raise your rates accordingly.

      In addition, you will most likely want two connections that are atleast a megabit in speed, as anything slower will make BGP routing table transfers/updates to your router a pain in the ass.
      But it is technically possible with slower links.. It just takes alot more time and will be slow to respond to the global routing table changes.

      You also need either a router or a PC router that can do BGP. BSD and linux can do this, so you wont need to buy a cisco capable of bgp, which is fortunate as they are usually rather pricy.

      So for $2500 /year and around $500+ /month /isp you too can do BGP.

      Have fun!
      • First to use BGP you must have a block of 16 C class's (a /20) either from ARIN ($2500 per year) or from one of your ISPs (variable rates) This is the smallest block that the internets border routers will 'see' a BGP route for. Anything smaller will be ignored and you will not be able to reach those networks.

        Actually, this isn't really true. Depending on where you are in the IPv4 namespace, you can get announcements as small as a /24 through backbone filters. Now, if you get space under the Swamp (below 192.0.0.0), you'll probably need the full /20. Otherwise, well, I've had single /24's be reachable from everywhere (in 216.249.0.0/16).

        Of course, you don't really need that much space. Get two T1's (one from each of two providers), a /24 from one (or both), and cross-announce over BGP. Voila. Redundant links. Maybe not very well load balanced (depends on who your two providers are, and where your traffic goes), but redundant.

  • I'm Missing Something? (Score:3, Funny)

    by coaxial ( 28297 ) on Sunday November 24, 2002 @09:33PM (#4747445) Homepage
    Could some one please tell me why you need multiple broadband connections? Some of us would be happy with one.
  • I was looking if multiple dial-up connections would give me any benefit until I saw this subject. Life is unfair. ;-)

Slashdot Top Deals

E = MC ** 2 +- 3db

Close