Bonded (A)DSL

Anyone got any recommendations with regards to bonding 2 connections?

Have been told that "BT are upgrading the Muxes in the exchanges and bonded
connections will stop working"

On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 15:02:12 GMT, "Jono" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Anyone got any recommendations with regards to bonding 2 connections?
>
>Have been told that "BT are upgrading the Muxes in the exchanges and bonded
>connections will stop working"
>

Who told you that?

Jake
--
Address munged but valid - remove mungbeans.

On 14 Dec 2005 15:02, "Jono" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Anyone got any recommendations with regards to bonding 2 connections?

Use uk.net.providers (!) and did you use Google to search for 'bonding',
as there may be some old posts from Adrian Kennard in u.n.p.aaisp and if
not there, alt.internet.providers.uk.aaisp (if it exists). HTH. Peter


--
runbox.com - 10 GB of mail storage and 1000 MB for files...
30 day free trial... <http://2238.runbox.com/>
Can accept mail for your domain and apply filtering...
Point your MX record to mx.runbox.com and use POP/IMAP...

"Muxton" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 15:02:12 GMT, "Jono" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>Anyone got any recommendations with regards to bonding 2 connections?
>>
>>Have been told that "BT are upgrading the Muxes in the exchanges and
>>bonded
>>connections will stop working"
>>
>
> Who told you that?
>
> Jake
> --
> Address munged but valid - remove mungbeans.

Is it nonsense?

On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 11:31:47 GMT, "Jono" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
>"Muxton" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:(E-Mail Removed).. .
>> On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 15:02:12 GMT, "Jono" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>>Anyone got any recommendations with regards to bonding 2 connections?
>>>
>>>Have been told that "BT are upgrading the Muxes in the exchanges and
>>>bonded
>>>connections will stop working"
>>>
>>
>> Who told you that?
>>
>> Jake
>> --
>> Address munged but valid - remove mungbeans.
>
>Is it nonsense?
>

As far as I know, yes. We provision quite a lot of bonded connections
using Multilink PPP and they're all working fine.

Which sort of answers your original question - I recommend Multilink
PPP for bonding n x ADSL channels!

Drop me an email privately if you want to discuss.

Jake
--
Address munged but valid - remove mungbeans.

On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 11:31:47 GMT, "Jono" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Is it nonsense?

it may depend on the way the ISP concerned connects to BT. If BT route
the IP packets from a Home Gateway the answer may be different to an
ISP where L2TP is used to delived the packets to the ISP so that the
first thing you see on a traceroute is your ISP's router.

Even with ISDN multilink bonding would fail if the two calls ended up
on different "modem" racks, I suppose the same could happen with
parallel VPs on BT Centrals or the like.

But ADSL bonding can work, I have even seen it not working then get
fixed and work on 3 * 2M lines.

Phil
--
Tiscali - dialup speeds at Broadband prices, see
http://bbs.adslguide.org.uk/postlist...&Board=tiscali

AOL - the unlimited ISP of choice for heavy downloaders.

On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 15:58:25 +0000, Phil Thompson
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 11:31:47 GMT, "Jono" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>Is it nonsense?
>
>it may depend on the way the ISP concerned connects to BT. If BT route
>the IP packets from a Home Gateway the answer may be different to an
>ISP where L2TP is used to delived the packets to the ISP so that the
>first thing you see on a traceroute is your ISP's router.

Correct With L2TP delivery the ISP is in control of the PPP
sessions, whereas with "classic" delivery the ISP only receives an
aggregated feed from BT's home gateway.

>
>Even with ISDN multilink bonding would fail if the two calls ended up
>on different "modem" racks, I suppose the same could happen with
>parallel VPs on BT Centrals or the like.

There are ways to make sure that everything works as you want it to
work. AFAIK (and I don't work in our network engineering dept. so
might be wrong) a customer could, in theory, take a DSL connection
from 2 exchanges, if for some bizarre reason that's how it's
presented, and MLPP will still work without a hitch. And why
shouldn't it? PPP is unaware of the lower layers.

>
>But ADSL bonding can work, I have even seen it not working then get
>fixed and work on 3 * 2M lines.

We've seen it working with 6 x 2Mbps lines from one customer. There's
no reason why it shouldn't work with more, but I wouldn't want to buy
the router...

Jake
--
Address munged but valid - remove mungbeans.

On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 18:05:52 +0000, Muxton
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> AFAIK (and I don't work in our network engineering dept. so
>might be wrong) a customer could, in theory, take a DSL connection
>from 2 exchanges, if for some bizarre reason that's how it's
>presented, and MLPP will still work without a hitch. And why
>shouldn't it? PPP is unaware of the lower layers.

one of the rumours was that BT had some error correcting filters that
would stop packets going to the same IP from going down two different
virtual paths, or words to that effect.

Such a filter makes some sense, as an IP address is unique it
shouldn't be present on two different virtual circuits.

But it may just be FUD.

Phil
--
Tiscali - dialup speeds at Broadband prices, see
http://bbs.adslguide.org.uk/postlist...&Board=tiscali

AOL - the unlimited ISP of choice for heavy downloaders.

On 18 Dec 2005 09:41, Phil Thompson <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Such a filter makes some sense, as an IP address is unique it
>shouldn't be present on two different virtual circuits.

I think it 'broke' bonding for users of AISP, and was discussed a while
ago in some other (.aaisp) group. Peter M.

--
runbox.com - 10 GB of mail storage and 1000 MB for files...
30 day free trial... <http://2238.runbox.com/>
Can accept mail for your domain and apply filtering...
Point your MX record to mx.runbox.com and use POP/IMAP...

In article <(E-Mail Removed) us.net>,
Peter M <us-(E-Mail Removed)> wrote
>On 18 Dec 2005 09:41, Phil Thompson <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>Such a filter makes some sense, as an IP address is unique it
>>shouldn't be present on two different virtual circuits.
>
>I think it 'broke' bonding for users of AISP, and was discussed a while
>ago in some other (.aaisp) group. Peter M.

BT's introduction of reverse path filtering caused headaches for
customers of several ISPs. Fortunately AAISP's new L2TP pipe
circumvents the problem <http://www.aaisp.net.uk/aa/adsl/newpipe.html>.

--
Bob Evans