2 lines ADSL

Hi ...

Can someone advise me, if its possable to combine 2 adsl lines (512k) to
make ie 1mg...

I am having a 2nd line installed by BT, and i am thinking about getting ADSL
on there too, as my existing line will not allow me anything above 512k.

So it this possable to setup within Windows XP.

Thanks

Patrick

On Sat, 4 Oct 2003 20:16:06 +0100, "Patrick Ross" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

> Can someone advise me, if its possable to combine 2 adsl lines (512k) to
> make ie 1mg...
>
> I am having a 2nd line installed by BT, and i am thinking about getting ADSL
> on there too, as my existing line will not allow me anything above 512k.
>
> So it this possable to setup within Windows XP.

Dunno about what's in XP but you can bond aDSL line uplinks with a
Firebrick: http://www.firebrick.co.uk/ and http://aa.nu/adsl/faq.html but
I've no idea how download bonding can work. How could a remote host ever
know that packets associated with a session could be sent to different ip
addresses from the one which was the source for establishing the session?

Tony

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>
Patrick Ross <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Hi ...

>Can someone advise me, if its possable to combine 2 adsl lines (512k) to
>make ie 1mg...

Yes. You can pay a large amount of money to A&A, and have them sort it
out: I believe their method works seamlessly, but as they have access to
both sides of the link I'd expect as much.

You can also purchase one of these, or do it yourself:
<http://makeashorterlink.com/?G15921A16>

However, it's just policy NAT, which basically splits outgoing packets
between two routes, fixing up the source addresses as necessary, and
then translating the received packets, sending them to the true source
(a machine on your local network).

This would allow you two simultaneous streams to the same host, each at
60K/sec, or thereabouts. It would not allow you one stream at 120K/sec.

Policy NAT also carries with it all the problems of NAT, but if you
allocate your computer a routeable address for one of the DSL lines then
force static paths for all applications that don't pass through NAT
cleanly (ie: don't load-balance them), you can escape them, which is
more than most people behind NAT can do.

It's not very satisfactory, but it's better than nothing. I'll be doing
this in a few days (with BSD): I have the option of moving to 1M on my
existing line, but the multi-homing is more attractive than extra
bandwidth, so it has to be another 512K line for me.

>I am having a 2nd line installed by BT, and i am thinking about getting ADSL
>on there too, as my existing line will not allow me anything above 512k.

G.992.3 (ADSL2) will address this issue by providing for ATM inverse
multiplexing. It also has several other interesting features, including
being able to dedicate a line to DSL (no voice service) for an extra
256K of upstream bandwidth.

Whether this can be effectively deployed by BT is another matter..

>So it this possable to setup within Windows XP.

Almost certainly not.

--
James MacDonald

"Anthony R. Gold" <not-for-(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Dunno about what's in XP but you can bond aDSL line uplinks with a
> Firebrick: http://www.firebrick.co.uk/

If you happen to have £400 to spare for the firebrick (ouch) The advantage
being that you'll get a 1024/512 link for somewhere around £40 a month

Paul

"Paul G" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:6FIfb.9157$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> "Anthony R. Gold" <not-for-(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > Dunno about what's in XP but you can bond aDSL line uplinks with a
> > Firebrick: http://www.firebrick.co.uk/
>
> If you happen to have £400 to spare for the firebrick (ouch) The advantage
> being that you'll get a 1024/512 link for somewhere around £40 a month

Add the line rental for both lines...

--
Andrew Cameron
"Got my hand on my heart, I know no better location..."

On Sat, 4 Oct 2003, James MacDonald <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>You can also purchase one of these, or do it yourself:
><http://makeashorterlink.com/?G15921A16>

Thanks for that! I'll go back and have a read. It might be worthwhile
to mention what the link is *for* though (it goes to a hardware review
on the ADSLguide site of the NetEyes Cyclone 200 load balancing router)

<http://www.edimax.com.tw/html/english/products/BR-6541.htm> is another
possible solution. "clueless" (posting name) has one and I'm tempted!

>>So it this possable to setup within Windows XP.
>Almost certainly not.

Using Windows XP I've been using two ISPs, but defining specific
routers for specific remote IP addresses/ranges. For example,
for downloading news from Claranet, I use my ADSL connection
that has a fixed IP. For FTP/ssh access to remote servers I
also used that connection, and for incoming radio from the
BBC.

For various web browsing activity, streaming video etc (eg from
public webcams, such as the one operated by my local council) and
any high bandwidth needs, I am using the ADSL with a dynamic IP.

All depends what you want to do, as to whether you need a fancy
multi-WAN connection router, really. I used the commands (in an
MS-DOS window) to set permanent use of specific gateways :-

(network gateway set to ADSL #1 IP = 'default' usage) and:

route -p add xx.yy.0.0 mask 255.255.0.0 <IP for ADSL #2>
route -p add xx.yy.0.0 mask 255.255.0.0 <IP for ADSL #2>
route -p add aa.bb.ccc.ddd <IP for ADSL #2>
route -p add cc.dd.e.fff <IP for ADSL #2>

Hope that helps the original poster! Peter Morgan.

On Sun, 5 Oct 2003 10:59:28 +0100, "Andrew Cameron" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

> "Paul G" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:6FIfb.9157$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>
>> "Anthony R. Gold" <not-for-(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> Dunno about what's in XP but you can bond aDSL line uplinks with a
>>> Firebrick: http://www.firebrick.co.uk/
>>
>> If you happen to have £400 to spare for the firebrick (ouch) The advantage
>> being that you'll get a 1024/512 link for somewhere around £40 a month
>
> Add the line rental for both lines...

It's not free, but how can we tell whether it's expensive unless we have
something with which to compare it? It is the one way I know to get
512kbps of upload bandwidth which some people need. Are there any other
ways to do this so that we have something else to compare prices?

Tony

"Anthony R. Gold" <not-for-(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Sun, 5 Oct 2003 10:59:28 +0100, "Andrew Cameron" <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
> > "Paul G" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > news:6FIfb.9157$(E-Mail Removed)...
> >>
> >> "Anthony R. Gold" <not-for-(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> >> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> >>> Dunno about what's in XP but you can bond aDSL line uplinks with a
> >>> Firebrick: http://www.firebrick.co.uk/
> >>
> >> If you happen to have £400 to spare for the firebrick (ouch) The
advantage
> >> being that you'll get a 1024/512 link for somewhere around £40 a month
> >
> > Add the line rental for both lines...
>
> It's not free, but how can we tell whether it's expensive unless we have
> something with which to compare it? It is the one way I know to get
> 512kbps of upload bandwidth which some people need. Are there any other
> ways to do this so that we have something else to compare prices?

Well, there's limited-availability SDSL at around £100/month for 512k and
around £150/month for 1Mbit. In the middle there somewhere, if a 1024/512
service existed, it would be about £125, I'd say. There's also leased line
but we're talking thousands and thousands of pounds a year for even a 64k
pipe, so that's right out.

Now, let's take activation fees - a new line would be around £100 perhaps?
Two ADSL activations at £60 each, and the Firebrick £400. Compared to SDSL
activation of about £200, it's a bit pricey. So, at line rental of
£25/month and subscription of £25/month per ISP account, the multi-ADSL
would cost around £100 a month, £25 cheaper than our theoretical 1024/512
service. So, you'd have to be doing this for about 18 months to get any
price benefit. )

--
Andrew Cameron
"Got my hand on my heart, I know no better location..."

"Andrew Cameron" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:blp055$ea5p9$(E-Mail Removed)...
> So, at line rental of £25/month

Oops, this is actually per quarter. So it's actually about £60 per month,
which would make it way cheaper than SDSL. Cheaper still might be going to
uni with a loan/grant and abusing their connection... ;o)

--
Andrew Cameron
"Got my hand on my heart, I know no better location..."

On Sun, 5 Oct 2003, "Andrew Cameron" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Now, let's take activation fees - a new line would be around £100 perhaps?

new lines are 74.99

>Two ADSL activations at £60 each, and the Firebrick £400. Compared to SDSL

Some ADSL activations are STILL free, or cheap (mine was 1/2 price, not
free, back in March), but perhaps not with a fixed IP address. While the
Firebrick is one option, there are lesser cost options such as the two
multi-WAN units, though how close to "load sharing" they are I don't
know (no hands on yet).

>So, at line rental of £25/month and subscription of £25/month per ISP
>account, the multi-ADSL would cost around £100 a month, £25 cheaper

Uh ? BT: 9.50 per line for standard rental, if paid by DD. Peter M.