Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×
Networking Games

Ask Slashdot: VPN Setup To Improve Latency Over Multiple Connections? 174

blogologue writes I've been playing Battlefield for some time now, and having a good ping there is important for a good gaming experience. Now I'm in the situation where I have mobile internet access from two telecom companies, and neither of those connections are stable enough to play games on, the odd ping in hundreds of milliseconds throws everything off. How can I setup a Windows client (my PC) and a Linux server (in a datacenter, connected to the internet) so that the same TCP and UDP traffic goes over both links, and the fastest packet on either link 'wins' and the other is discarded?
(Have your own question for the teeming masses? Ask away — be sure to include appropriate detail and context — via the Slashdot submission form.)
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Ask Slashdot: VPN Setup To Improve Latency Over Multiple Connections?

Comments Filter:
  • What makes you think (Score:2, Interesting)

    by msobkow ( 48369 )

    What makes you think the servers can deal with multiple copies of data sanely?

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Doesn't TCP require it come back on the path too?

      • by Ungrounded Lightning ( 62228 ) on Saturday October 11, 2014 @03:56PM (#48120585) Journal

        Doesn't TCP require it come back on the path too?

        Absolutely not. Nor does it expect that to usually happen. The routes in opposite directions are often different. (For starters, they're based on the local knowledge of the routers at opposite ends of the path, which are typically familiar with their neighborhood and may have no clue about what things are like near the other end.)

        The routes of diffetrent packets in the same direction are often different, too (like for load-balancing by throwing alternate packets down two slower links to get an effectively faster link). Every packet is potentially routed differently (though routing protocols like label switchingmay often set up connection-like shortcuts that make consecitve packets take the same path - to speed things up).

        What matters is just that they get to the same ENDPOINT. Some may be silently lost. Some may be duplicated. Some may arrive out of order (like when a route changes and later packets get there faster).

        It's been like this since IP, UDP, and TCP were invented. It was a core principle of their invention.

        = = = =

        Having said that:

        Deviation (other than packet drops) from simple first-in-first-out packet flow tend to be rare. So not all servers and/or clients handle them well. (TCP will sort out missing and misordered packets on the receiving end - sometimes at substantial cost in buffering and latency. UDP will not - for simplicity, speed, and for when occasional lost packets are less of a problem than high latency and occasional long delays. So if the server and/or client can't handle transmission problems well, performance may suffer or functionality simply fail.)

        Many networking company customers of high-speed router makers make the additional requirement that a stream of packets coming in one particluar interface from one particular source and going out another particular interface to a particular destination are not reordered. That's a pain when the router's guts are a sea of little processors each handling packets individually, so additional special purpose hardware may be added to track packet order and insure things don't get reordered between input and output queues.

      • by Comen ( 321331 )

        It does not require the same path through the internet, but you wont be able to use one ISP's connection from packets coming back from the source of other connections IP address. you have to use one connection or the other, you could change your connections and restart you game, but the game will not let you change IP's during gameplay.
        This whole idea had lots of issues anyway, if both connections suck, you should just get a good connections, if you want to play games, a wireless internet solution is just n

        • by karnal ( 22275 )

          How much does one make when one moves a lawn? Must be a pretty penny!

          • well, I recently installed about 10,000 square feet of sod and it cost me about $3500 just for the sod, so...

    • Well, for one thing the servers have to cope with that, because internet service in general doesn't guarantee that packets don't get duplicated. But in what OP is suggesting, the servers won't see duplicate packets - the idea is that every packet gets sent out of both internet connections to one, private, hosted VPN server - and that server runs a service that forwards whichever copy of the packet arrives first to the "real" destination (and discards the losing packet) - so the game server will only get one
      • ... But in what OP is suggesting, the servers won't see duplicate packets ...

        Actually, since OP asked how to "setup a Windows client (my PC) and a Linux server (in a datacenter, connected to the internet)" it suggests he wants to know how to get fired for using his company's resources to play Battlefield while at work. But, perhaps I'm just reading too far into this. OP may have his own personal datacenter.

        • If that "Linux server in a datacenter" is a VPS, you can get one for like $7/mo.
          • If that "Linux server in a datacenter" is a VPS, you can get one for like $7/mo.

            Sure, but I find it hard to imagine that it would (at least routinely) be faster than using his current wireless setup to route his traffic from his desktop ... through his cable modem ... through his ISP ... through a remote datacenter (somewhere) ... to the Battlefield servers. Plus, of course, the $7.

            • by Ungrounded Lightning ( 62228 ) on Saturday October 11, 2014 @04:13PM (#48120649) Journal

              I find it hard to imagine that it would (at least routinely) be faster than using his current wireless setup to route his traffic from his desktop ... through his cable modem ... through his ISP ... through a remote datacenter (somewhere) ... to the Battlefield servers

              I have no problem at all believing that. The OP says he is using two MOBILE access devices from two (wireless) carriers and is (if I read him right) experiencing substantial intermittent (but separate) delay and/or drop events in both of them. If he throws each packet down both of them and the first one to arrive at the data center gets to the game server, the packets that are lost or delayed on BOTH paths will be very much rarer and his gaming experience will be substantially improved.

              Yes, he'll get a little extra latency on the fast packets - which is most of them. But server farms generally have fat and blazingly fast backbone connections, so it shouldn't be a lot added. A small price to pay to make almost ALL packets arrive reasonably quickly and almost NONE experience big delays or loss.

        • by Lennie ( 16154 )

          First of all, I doubt you'll find anything that already works on Windows.

          So it would have to be something like Linux on both sides. So you'll need a Linux machine as a gateway if you want to use Windows.

          Now that said, there are 2 things I've seen which are available for Linux:
          - multipath-TCP could do this, but TCP is usually pretty bad as a tunneling protocol if you want good latency.
          - a better way might be a routing protocol with a weight for the latency (=round-trip time) and with very fast convergence to

    • He asked how to set up a server too, so I assume he knows the two streams have to be received and handled (by dropping the slower packet in each pair) before transmitting to the game server.

    • "No." (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Spazmania ( 174582 )

      The answer is: no, this can not be done with current protocols.

      In theory with new protocols that your game doesn't support, sure. But only the end-to-end machines understand latency and jitter (your problem is jitter) so a middlebox won't help you.

    • by sribe ( 304414 )

      What makes you think the servers can deal with multiple copies of data sanely?

      What makes you think TCP cannot deal with duplicate packets???

      • by msobkow ( 48369 ) on Saturday October 11, 2014 @05:33PM (#48121031) Homepage Journal

        TCP can deal with duplicate packets from the same endpoints. Sending duplicate packets over two entirely seperate routes would require that the server be able to deal with demultiplexing the requests. I seriously, seriously doubt that any game servers are set up to do that. As far as the game server would be concerned, it's two seperate clients for the same account connected.

        • Nope. If I am understanding the situation correctly, there is only one connection from his server at the datacenter to the Battlefield server. The "duplicate" streams are handled before they ever leave his own datacenter server. I see no reason why this could not be accomplished since he controls both endpoints... but AFAIK, he would need to write his own networking stack. It seems that what he wants is a bit outside of the protocol specs and can not be handled "automatically".

      • by msobkow ( 48369 )

        Hmm. I just caught the part about the Linux server at the data center doing the demultiplexing.

        I suppose, at least in theory, you could go on the assumption that both channels are always sending the same data, and have them forward the request appropriately, cache the message block, and do a comparison on all message blocks incoming over both channels before forwarding one to eliminate the duplicates.

        You'd then have to do the same thing on the Windows "client" box at home.

        Quite frankly, I can't see

      • by rev0lt ( 1950662 )
        Not really, no. Theoretically, they are possible (assuming same source IP and predictable sequence numbers after handshake). In practice, it doesn't really work that way - because in the end, you may be sending the ack packet from the wrong interface, and mess the state table there :)
    • by agizis ( 676060 )
      The servers can't handle getting the data from different IP addresses.. That's why you need a VPN-style server in the middle to put the packets back together in a sane way. This is what we do with Speedify: []
  • no (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 11, 2014 @03:10PM (#48120381)

    A VPN or any kind of encapsulated network traffic will only add to the latency.

    • no (Score:5, Insightful)

      by psmears ( 629712 ) on Saturday October 11, 2014 @03:20PM (#48120429)
      That's true, but it seems that the real problem the OP is trying to solve is huge variance in the latency (i.e. jitter) - that is, the idea is to trade a very small amount of extra latency for the latency being much more consistent (without the massive spikes currently being seen). I'm not sure how well it would work in practice (e.g. if some of the spikes are due to local RF interference, it's possible they will affect both connections at the same time), but there's potential at least for a much smoother gaming experience.
    • A couple of milliseconds extra for all traffic doesn't matter. The point is to avoid those short spikes in network latency that get me kicked from online servers..
    • by Bengie ( 1121981 )
      The quality of the route matters, also, packet loss. If he has something that essentially duplicates the VPN traffic to the same VPN server, then the VPN server just ignores the second packet, packet-loss would be less likely to happen, and it also helps getting the minimum latency of the two high jitter connections.

      Many people have such crappy ISPs or connection signal strength that a round-about route is still better.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 11, 2014 @03:17PM (#48120415)

    This is why local LAN play with your buddies beats some unknown remote server. Plus, then you can keep playing after the central server is taken offline.

    What's that? Your favorite game doesn't support LAN play? Well, better support the ones that do, and not support the ones that don't, if you want this option to remain viable into the future.

  • You should look into multipath networking, IEEE 802.1aq etc. There actually is a company called multipath neworks [] that sells a hardware solution, but you should be able to find software solutions as well.

    • by lw54 ( 73409 )

      Yes, Multipath. Unfortunately the premise of the question is nearly akin to asking for the world. The current TCP implementation just isn't capable of performing the task being asking of it.

      • by Anonymous Coward

        Of course that's completely untrue. There are many products out there that deal with this very problem. Almost all products targeted towards WAN optimization perform this exact task. Riverbed, Bluecoat, Cisco WAAS, they all do it, there are many many more products out there too, I believe even F5 has gear for it now and Sonicwall is starting to include it in their latest generation firewalls. This specific problem is common with many larger VOIP implementations where jitter can be problematic.

  • Your latency and unreliability comes from your mobile links. Get better providers or find a different lower-latency game to play.

    • Poster is entirely aware that his unreliability comes from his mobile links. That is why he is asking the question. Better, affordable, providers probably don't exist in his area, and this is the game that he has decided he wants to play.

      Chances are that his situation is similar to mine: around $20 a month towards Freedompop (WiMax) for one mobile connection, and tethering through my phone (4G) for another connection.
      My other options are $55/month for Verzion FIOS (they no longer offer DSL in my a
  • by Anonymous Coward

    Bandwidth != latency unless you are going to send crafted packets to exploit the game

  • by shrikel ( 535309 ) <.moc.liamg. .ta. .jrafgalh.> on Saturday October 11, 2014 @03:32PM (#48120491)

    How can I...

    Simple. Just write a custom driver on both the Windows and Linux boxes to handle both ends as described (you'll want the traffic duplicated both ways, I'd imagine, since you're not just dealing with one-way communication here).

    I doubt there's anything off the shelf that will handle what you want. Sounds like a fun project... but don't undertake this unless you think the project will be as fun to work on as actually playing your game. And be prepared to drop a hundred hours into it (depending on your coding abilities and familiarity with the associated APIs).

  • Bufferbloat fix (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    If you want a hands-off fix, buy a D-LINK DGL-5500, or a ZyXEL NBG6716. They will help keeping your latency low, via Qualcomm's "StreamBoost". Don't use the WiFi for gaming.

    For a more Slashdot'ish answer, buy a router that supports OpenWRT and roll your own solution with fq_codel and htb. StreamBoost uses that, and some hand picked traffic shaping rules that Qualcomm will send if you use known games. Most of the profit comes from the fq_codel though.

  • When you're connected via two providers, you have two different public IP adresses.
    You want to send each data packet over both links to some server on the internet, which would relay the first incoming copy of each packet to the game server (or another host). Likewise, the game server sends its data to the intermediate server which would need to send each packet to both your public IPs.
    On IP level, this is nearly impossible to do, because target and source IPs would need to be rewritten and the intermediate

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 11, 2014 @03:35PM (#48120503)

    Sounds like an interesting problem; I check the comments to see what solutions to the specific problem laid out might exist. Instead, the comments show varying levels of misunderstanding the question and/or the proposed solution.

    The proposed solution is simple:

    1. Client duplicates packets over two mobile links to an intermediate, user-controlled server.
    2. This server sorts things out and discards the losing packet, and forwards the winner on to the real gaming server.

    Both client/intermediate server are under the control of the user, with two possible links. The communication protocol between these two nodes can be user-defined to anything. The question was how to configure this.

    "How will the server deal with duplicate copies?" Duh, the gaming server won't. That's what the intermediate server is for. Did you read the OP?
    "A VPN will add to the latency." Yes, but that wasn't the problem. The problem is random jitter on one of the links.
    "Local LAN play is better!" Well yes, but that's not remotely related to the problem. Maybe he doesn't have anybody local to play with regularly?
    "Use this exotic hardware solution." Why, if the problem can be solved for free with software?
    "Your latency comes from your mobile links." Duh, but he already measured the main problem to be random jitter. Why not comment on the proposed solution?

    The only concern I read that is accurate was that an RF disturbance could interrupt both links.

    • Bingo. I had a very similar problem on my train journey tonight, but related to packet loss instead of latency. Both the WiFi on the train and my 3G cut out at various points, often diverging in coverage as the journey progressed. If such a solution, which sounds a lot like channel bonding (as mentioned by another poster) is available, it would seem to cover this scenario as well. Imagine the implications for mesh networking as well - or is this something already dealt with in MN?
    • by hvdh ( 1447205 )

      I do understand. Most people say it's not possible with current protocols, and they're right. But on VPN layer, it can be done.
      On your PC, the VPN service appears as a network device (vNIC). Somewhere in the VPN software, there's one point where all
      network packets sent over the vNIC are serialized into into bytestream to be encrypted (but you don't need that here) and sent
      over a TCP connection to the VPN server.
      At this point, you have to extend the VPN software to connect to the same server twice, using dif

  • You may be able to check if your latency varies due to mobile protocol switches to lower power due to less activity.

    As a first test, try:

    ping -t -l 1000
    ping -t

    If the 1000 byte ping has more consistent times than the standard pings - that's the issue and you may be able to find a minimum payload size which makes the connection more consistent without switching.
    • In my specific case, I found that payload of 600 bytes works the best. So if latency is important (i.e. I am typing a lot over RDP) I just run "ping -t -l 600"
  • by LukeCrawford ( 918758 ) <> on Saturday October 11, 2014 @03:46PM (#48120547) Homepage Journal []

    of course, this requires the other end to support it, which it probably doesn't.

    I've also considered selling "multipath vpn" service... the idea being that people with two DSL providers (and one dsl and one cable) provider would setup their gateway (or use a linux box that I sell them and manage) to send all packets out VPNs on both connections, to my own vpn endpoint in a datacenter. The idea being that then my server on the other end of that connection would take the first packet and send it on to it's destination. Assuming that my datacenter has a good connection, you would suffer less packet loss, and less latency.

    My solution here would solve the problem if the problem is latency/loss on your last mile connection. It would not help at all if the problem was further along the connection, while multipath-tcp would

    • interesting (Score:3, Informative)

      by blogologue ( 681423 )
      That's interesting. Maybe combined with this: [] - it could provide what's needed. What I need in my case is good handling of TCP and UDP, anything else isn't relevant. Maybe I should try creating some sort of virtual network card that handles TCP and UDP, and hands the rest over to a real network card?
    • by agizis ( 676060 )
      A MPTCP VPN would not work in the real world. When you tunnel TCP through it, you end out having to send ACKs for the ACKs. The end result is that the effects of even a tiny bit of packet loss is a performance meltdown: [] To build Speedify, we needed to implement a new multipath protocol over UDP. But that let us do clever stuff with NACKing and retransmitting lost packets before TCP ever noticed, and we were actually able to reduce the effect of loss: []
  • by gringer ( 252588 ) on Saturday October 11, 2014 @03:52PM (#48120569)

    Hi, I'd like to hear a TCP joke
    Hello, would you like to hear a TCP joke?
    Yes, I'd like to hear a TCP joke
    Okay, I'll tell you a TCP joke
    Okay, I'm ready to hear a TCP joke
    Okay, I'm about to send a TCP joke, that'll last for 10 seconds. It has two characters, it does not have a setting, it'll end with a punchline.
    Okay, I'll get your TCP joke, that'll last for 10 seconds. It has two characters, it does not have a setting, it'll end with a punchline.
    I'm sorry, your connection has timed out

    On the other hand, I could successfully tell you an entire UDP joke, but you might not get it.

    • I'd tell you a joke about TCP but I'd have to keep repeating it until you got it.

      I'd tell you a joke about UDP but you might not get it.

  • by ERJ ( 600451 ) on Saturday October 11, 2014 @03:56PM (#48120583)
    So, just to clarify I believe what the poster wants to do is this:

    |||| Gaming Client PC ||||
    |||| Local Windows Box ||||
    |||| Internet 1 |||| Internet 2 ||||
    |||| Hosted Linux Server ||||
    |||| Gaming Server ||||

    Local Windows Box acts as a router and duplicates all inbound traffic sending it out box Internet 1 and Internet 2. Hosted Linux Box receives traffic, picks whatever packet arrives first and forwards it and throws away the slower duplicate when it comes it.

    It is an interesting idea. As far as I am aware routing protocols only do best route and fail over but I am not aware of any that always sends both routes.
  • You're not asking for a VPN. You're asking for a new routing protocol.

    Once you have written a new routing protocol just submit it to the IEEE. Then you have to convince the large router manufacturers to use your standard.

    You might want to get a job at CISCO. You would have better luck there.

  • by Anonymice ( 1400397 ) on Saturday October 11, 2014 @04:53PM (#48120827)

    Load balancing & bonding over multiple NICs. Isn't this what LACP was made for?
    No idea if there's anything available for Windows, but chuck a Linux VM on it to act as a virtual router & presto!

    How well it works would depend on the LACP stack's ability to handle the issues presented by wireless modems. It works great in a server environment.

    • by jaa101 ( 627731 )

      LACP is a layer 2 solution, i.e., it works at the ethernet level. The requirement here is for a layer 3 solution that works on the Internet. My guess is that there's nothing off the shelf so he'll have to start coding.

  • And stop stealing your community's bandwidth.

  • by 93 Escort Wagon ( 326346 ) on Saturday October 11, 2014 @04:57PM (#48120843)

    Take the money you were going to spend on hosting a Linux server in a datacenter and instead use it to buy a decent internet connection, rather than relying on two mobile data plans.

    Or give up one of the mobile data plans, and use that savings to buy a decent internet connection.

  • by Chas ( 5144 ) on Saturday October 11, 2014 @05:24PM (#48120983) Homepage Journal []

    This kinda sounds like what you're looking for.

  • The role I've been in for the last 13 years requires me to wear a number of hats, including network engineer and network architect in medium sized environments.
    I say that to provide some context for this statement: it is not at all clear to me what you're actually asking for.
  • Speedify (Score:4, Informative)

    by agizis ( 676060 ) on Saturday October 11, 2014 @05:30PM (#48121023) Homepage
    What you have described is Connectify's Speedify, it's a VPN that combines multiple internet connections together. As of the latest release it handles both jitter and loss, please check it out: []
  • Soft ether

  • by koan ( 80826 )

    Get a real connection, you remind of all the people on WiFi wondering why their gaming experience sucks.

  • by SirAudioMan ( 2836381 ) on Saturday October 11, 2014 @07:15PM (#48121507)

    I have run into the same issue with my cable ISP. I run a voip setup using as my provider and have my ATA connect to their servers. I have been plagued with random audio dropouts, talk-off and the occasional robot voice problem. After much research, troubleshooting I determined that the issue with jitter my ISP. Most pings to a know good server like Google DNS ( averages say 40 ms but occasionally (say every 30 pings) the time jumps up to 800 ms. This happens regardless of the server I ping and also occurs when I ping my ISP's gateway address. This tells me that the problem is internal to my ISP and not an external routing problem.

    The reason why is what is called Node Congestion. Most North American cable ISP's use DOCSIS with hybrid-fiber nodes located through the geographic area. Nodes may start off with 100 active users on it meaning all 100 users are sharing that piece of the pipe. As time progresses, traffic changes, people ditch their cable tv for Netflix. All of this has a huge impact on congestion and bingo as a result ping times suffer. The average person will never notice but with any time sensitive service like voip and some gaming, you will notice it.

    There is not much you can do other than a) complain to your ISP (good luck) or b) find another that's not just a reseller of your existing cable's infrastructure. I'm not sure if DSL suffers the same issue as the shared cable plant.

    • by Lennie ( 16154 )

      The person that asked the question mentioned 2 mobile providers.

      Of course his connection is going to suck, it's wireless.

      The question is:

      Can you use 2 mobile connections to get the best of the 2.

      The first thing to try would be if he/she started 2 pings, would they both go bad at the same time. If so he/she doesn't have to try any of the tricks mentioned.

  • by uolamer ( 957159 )

    I don't have an answer to accomplish what you are talking about however....

    You can typically get a T1 line installed anywhere.. The prices vary, last one I had was $400 a month but that was about 30 miles from the closest city 10 miles down a paved country road and another mile or so down a dirt road and almost 200 miles from the closest city with an internet backbone. You might find out you can get a T1 or something along those lines for less than I was at that time.. I split my connection with my neighbor

  • I run a dual VPN link over two telcos (Comcast and U-Verse in my case), between my home and a colo. I don't try to repeat the traffic on both links, however, because they have different bandwidth capabilities and it just doesn't work well if the line becomes saturated. Instead I use PF and FAIRQ in both directions to remove packet backlogs at border routers in both directions, and to ensure that priority traffic gets priority. Either an aggregation-with-failover or a straight failover configuration works

  • For mobile internet connections... for dual mobile internet connections. I haven't done that but I have used VPNs over mobile hotspots extensively. There is just no way to get low latency even over multiple mobile links. The main problem is that the bandwidth capabilities of the links are fluctuating all of the time, and if you try to dup the packets you will end up overloading one or the other link randomly as time progresses because the TCP protocol will get acks from the other link and thus not backof

  • 1. Set up OpenVPN on the datacenter Linux server to act as your Battlefield endpoint (single IP + port).
    2. Set up 2 VPN connections, one from each phone, to that box.
    3. Set up a Linux box to act as a router at home. Use bluetooth or whatever to connect it to your mobile connections.
    4. Follow the directions here [] on how to set up iptables rules as needed on both Linux boxes.
    5. Modify the iptables rules as needed to your specific requirements.
    6. Keep on modifying iptables. It

    • by Lennie ( 16154 )

      If you only use it for loadbalancing with static iptables/ip rule/ip routes, it won't help in any way.

      It would need some kind of dynamic component.

      • by Lennie ( 16154 )

        Well, maybe if you send duplicate VPN packets 1 over each connection.

        But I don't think modern iptables has a MIRROR-target.

  • The easiest would be a script like this: 1. Connect to one of the VPNs 2. Run a generic performance test (ping, dropped packets, jitter, t/x rates, etc), preferably against the Battlefield server (or the same neighborhood as the server) 3. Store values of the performance test 4. Repeat using the other VPN 5. Compare values, use the VPN that has the best values from the performance test I doubt that using VPNs as a "duplex" is possible, or necessary, even. Just get a VPN that's as close as possible in terms
  • It can't be done. Advertisements for IP addresses will only let the information be sent to a single IP address.

    Technically if a server supported a specific configuration it might be sort of possible, like the battlefield server you were connecting to, and I don't mean the actual server but the software, but the reality of it is what many people have said, which packet arrives first, which gets priority, packet loss could occur, all sorts of weird things.

  • Instead of thinking complex solutions, you could also think of simpler solutions. Why don't you focus on improving your mobile connection.

    Like: make extension cord to tether your phone, and place the phone near or even outside the window.

    Or, buy a 'real' (seperate) G2/3/4 modem with a big (and seperate) antenna for $150.

    Or. See if you have local interference. Or, see if another type or brand of phone has a better connection.

    And of course you already stripped all apps from your tethering phone and disabled w

  • Long story short: it won't work. First you would have to convince the device with the two wireless interfaces (the windows PC I suppose) to send the packet on both path. Good luck with that: your typical routing software, including the one in the windows kernel, will choose whatever route it thinks is faster and stick to it. At most you can get some sort of load balancing but it's not what you are describing. If you somewhat manage to duplicate the traffic, TCP should handle that without problems. The imp
  • ... and reminds you that this is exactly the wrong use for port channels.

  • Ignorant troll remarks notwithstanding, this idea is sensible and doable, but requires deep understanding of TCP: e.g. yes it is supposed to be robust to duplicated or misordered packets, but no it will not perform acceptably with even low incidence rates of either. Symmetric PEPs w/explicit multipath packet processing will be needed: the Windows client is not a good candidate for one end of that pair; a lightweight Linux based transparent gateway, using e.g. tun/tap and netfilter, with some coding, can do

Earth is a beta site.