Bridging two DSL circuits?

I have a network with two DSL circuits, or should I say two networks
with one DSL circuit each. Two DSL lines are being leased from our ISP
and each one has its own router to connect about 5 computers each. The
thing is that all 10 computers share the same office: 5 of them on one
side of the office; the other 5 on the wall directly opposite. We'd
like to purchase a multifunction printer so that all computers can
print directly to it, yet some of you will probably realize the
problem I'm encountering: being two completely different networks,
sharing a printer on one won't allow us to access it on the other. We
need to still have access to both DSL circuits but also need to be
able to share the printer across all 10 computers. Does anyone know of
any solution for this quandary? If we had a router that could accept
two uplinks would that work? Or is there another piece of equipment we
could connect between our two current routers? Thanks in advance for
any help offered!

(E-Mail Removed) wrote:

> I have a network with two DSL circuits, or should I say two networks
> with one DSL circuit each. Two DSL lines are being leased from our ISP
> and each one has its own router to connect about 5 computers each. The
> thing is that all 10 computers share the same office: 5 of them on one
> side of the office; the other 5 on the wall directly opposite. We'd
> like to purchase a multifunction printer so that all computers can
> print directly to it, yet some of you will probably realize the
> problem I'm encountering: being two completely different networks,
> sharing a printer on one won't allow us to access it on the other. We
> need to still have access to both DSL circuits but also need to be
> able to share the printer across all 10 computers. Does anyone know of
> any solution for this quandary? If we had a router that could accept
> two uplinks would that work? Or is there another piece of equipment we
> could connect between our two current routers? Thanks in advance for
> any help offered!

Quite possibly your ISP should be able to provide you with DSL speed
sufficient to handle 10 users without issue. Having to have two separate
lines is for that little traffic is unnecessary.

If you require them the technique needed is called "Bonding" and it requires
both a router that can handle it as well as a DSLAM at the phone company
site that can as well. If you need to persue that then check with your ISP
to see if they even support bonding.

There are other options available and one that comes to mind is a two
circuit device from Multi-tech called a "route finder". Take a look at
their site for specifics.

However, you should have ALL your users in the same subnet connected to a
switch which is then connected to the router which is connected to your DSL
modem. That way all internal users could access the same printer(s) and/or
other devices so defined.

Hope this helps.

bobmct

Thanks for your help; I've looked into the issue a bit more and have a
few more questions and some possible solutions I'm considering:

--Getting an SDSL line since its upload and download speeds are the
same (the main reason why we have two circuits is because we do a lot
of uploading)
--DSLAM also seems like it would work, although it seems like the ISP
provides the equipment to multiplex the two circuits together, or am I
wrong? You mentioned I'd need a router that supports bonding, any
recommendations? And, finally, if we went this route, could you give
me a quick overview of how the pieces will be connected?
--Multitech's Route Finder: I looked at it on their site; seems
intriguing, do you know how exactly it handles the two WAN uplinks,
though? Does it use one as a primary and the other as a failover, or
does it combine the two to increase the throughput like DSLAM?

Thanks again for your current help!

--Logan

On Jan 29, 7:43 pm, bobmct <b...@worthless.info> wrote:
> logankri...@gmail.com wrote:
> > I have a network with two DSL circuits, or should I say two networks
> > with one DSL circuit each. Two DSL lines are being leased from our ISP
> > and each one has its own router to connect about 5 computers each. The
> > thing is that all 10 computers share the same office: 5 of them on one
> > side of the office; the other 5 on the wall directly opposite. We'd
> > like to purchase a multifunction printer so that all computers can
> > print directly to it, yet some of you will probably realize the
> > problem I'm encountering: being two completely different networks,
> > sharing a printer on one won't allow us to access it on the other. We
> > need to still have access to both DSL circuits but also need to be
> > able to share the printer across all 10 computers. Does anyone know of
> > any solution for this quandary? If we had a router that could accept
> > two uplinks would that work? Or is there another piece of equipment we
> > could connect between our two current routers? Thanks in advance for
> > any help offered!Quite possibly your ISP should be able to provide you with DSL speed
> sufficient to handle 10 users without issue. Having to have two separate
> lines is for that little traffic is unnecessary.
>
> If you require them the technique needed is called "Bonding" and it requires
> both a router that can handle it as well as a DSLAM at the phone company
> site that can as well. If you need to persue that then check with your ISP
> to see if they even support bonding.
>
> There are other options available and one that comes to mind is a two
> circuit device from Multi-tech called a "route finder". Take a look at
> their site for specifics.
>
> However, you should have ALL your users in the same subnet connected to a
> switch which is then connected to the router which is connected to your DSL
> modem. That way all internal users could access the same printer(s) and/or
> other devices so defined.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> bobmct

(E-Mail Removed) wrote:

> Thanks for your help; I've looked into the issue a bit more and have a
> few more questions and some possible solutions I'm considering:
>
> --Getting an SDSL line since its upload and download speeds are the
> same (the main reason why we have two circuits is because we do a lot
> of uploading)

I might be wrong but SDSL (Synchronous DSL) might be a requirement for
Bonded lines.

> --DSLAM also seems like it would work, although it seems like the ISP
> provides the equipment to multiplex the two circuits together, or am I
> wrong?
The DSLAM is actually at the local phone company's switching office in your
town/neighborhood and is most likely controlled by the phone company. Its
ciruits are used to pull the DSL signals off the copper and bridge them
onto an ATM (Asynchronous Transfer Method) link to your ISP.

> You mentioned I'd need a router that supports bonding, any
> recommendations?
The only one I've every used, and had excellent luck with was the Netopia
R7171 SDSL router. I'm sure its been replaced with a newer model but take
a look at their site (www.netopia.com). There must be others available but
as I haven't used bonding in quite a number of years I haven't kept up with
equipment availability.

> And, finally, if we went this route, could you give
> me a quick overview of how the pieces will be connected?
You have TWO voice grade phone jacks in your office. You connect TWO phone
cables from those two jacks to the two jacks on the back of the Bonding
capable router usually marked DSL1 and DSL2. Once the router is properly
configured (by connecting via a serial connection OR telnet connection) as
per the ISP's instructions and your own internal parameters, you save the
config and restart the router. When it comes up it just works.
I know that for $99 Netopia offers a service that will fully configure your
router for you. Initially they will talk you through the initial config
until they can connect over the Internet, then finish the job themselves.
Its a good, cheap learning experience. Be sure to SAVE what ever
configuration you end up with.

> --Multitech's Route Finder: I looked at it on their site; seems
> intriguing, do you know how exactly it handles the two WAN uplinks,
> though? Does it use one as a primary and the other as a failover, or
> does it combine the two to increase the throughput like DSLAM?
Unfortunately I have no idea how it works. I just have read about their
products from time to time. Sorry.

> Thanks again for your current help!
>
No problem! Please post what ever you end up with 'cause I am sure many of
us would like to know the equipment, config and results?

Good luck.

bobmct

On Jan 30, 7:37 pm, bobmct <b...@worthless.info> wrote:
> logankri...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Thanks for your help; I've looked into the issue a bit more and have a
> > few more questions and some possible solutions I'm considering:
>
> > --Getting an SDSL line since its upload and download speeds are the
> > same (the main reason why we have two circuits is because we do a lot
> > of uploading)
>
> I might be wrong but SDSL (Synchronous DSL) might be a requirement for
> Bonded lines.

You could also get a $50 Ethernet switch, and place it between your
two network clusters. If the routers that you are using are not
simply switching routers, where an Ethernet switch is built into the
router itself, then this should work, with perhaps a little
configuration. If, for some reason, you are unable to provide an
Ethernet link between the two networks, you can use a phone line. DSL
models barely cost the OEM $20. In this case, you would use an open
port on each of your two routers. You would take those two Ethernet
ports and connect each to the Ethernet port of of a DSL modem, so you
would have two DSL modems. Then you would simply connect the two DSL
modems together by plugging the telephone cables in the modems, and
going to the patch panel in your telephone company and simply bridging
them. Most DSL modems, if not all, are essentially AC-coupled, so do
not worry about polarity. The cable has a minimum length, IIRC, of a
few feet, and naturally, you should get very good speeds, on the order
of megabits/second, even in synchronous mode.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Thanks for both of your help so far! I'm currently still deciding
which route to go although I sort of seem to like Lapin's answer more
(sorry bobmct; you'srs sounds slightly harder). But it's still very up
the in air and I will definitely post to say what we went with.