Combining multiple wifi sources/signals for more bandwidth?

Hi, I have two neighbors that have wifi g/b (for email, it kills me)
that have said it would be ok if I mooched off of them a bit (in case
your wondering, I am considering throwing in a few bucks a month if
this works). I already have DSL so I have decent speed already (buy can
you really have "enough" speed) but it would be sweet to use all of
these signals at once to create a really fat pipe (especially when
walking around the house with my notebook). I am a podcast/vidcast
junkie so I could actually use some more bandwidth. I use XP and i
have an old Linux box (Slackware, but will consider changing or adding
a box [thanks used university supply store]) so I can go either route
(I am ok with Linux [command line etc] but *not* a guru) in terms of
OSes. Does anyone out there have any suggestions or recommendations on
how to go about this or know of any good HOWTOs (the simpler the
better) about this? Any help would be greatly appreciated!

Cheers

-Gaiko

On 1 Dec 2005 09:15:30 -0800, (E-Mail Removed) wrote:

>Hi, I have two neighbors that have wifi g/b (for email, it kills me)
>that have said it would be ok if I mooched off of them a bit (in case
>your wondering, I am considering throwing in a few bucks a month if
>this works). I already have DSL so I have decent speed already (buy can
>you really have "enough" speed) but it would be sweet to use all of
>these signals at once to create a really fat pipe (especially when
>walking around the house with my notebook). I am a podcast/vidcast
>junkie so I could actually use some more bandwidth. I use XP and i
>have an old Linux box (Slackware, but will consider changing or adding
>a box [thanks used university supply store]) so I can go either route
>(I am ok with Linux [command line etc] but *not* a guru) in terms of
>OSes. Does anyone out there have any suggestions or recommendations on
>how to go about this or know of any good HOWTOs (the simpler the
>better) about this? Any help would be greatly appreciated!

There is no easy way to distribute the traffic between two different
IP addresses, through two different gateways, so that a download from
a single IP address, would run perhaps twice as fast. However, if you
were to open two streams, one through each route, you would get double
your bandwidth. However, not from a single stream. It would work for
usenet news, surfing while downloading, and peer-to-peer havoc, but
not a streaming broadcast originating from a single server.

There are products that will do this under "load balancing routers"
http://www.edimax.com/html/english/p...-PRIrouter.htm
http://www.edimax.com/html/english/p...ist-router.htm
Basically, it's just like an "ordinary" router except except it has
multiple WAN ports. One goes to your DSL modem. The other goes via a
wireless client to your neighbors wireless connection.

You can probably do the same thing with your Linux conglomeration.
However, I'll plead ignorance and let someone with more expience in
Linux offer soemthing that works.


--
Jeff Liebermann (E-Mail Removed)
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

(E-Mail Removed) writes:

>Hi, I have two neighbors that have wifi g/b (for email, it kills me)
>that have said it would be ok if I mooched off of them a bit (in case
>your wondering, I am considering throwing in a few bucks a month if
>this works). I already have DSL so I have decent speed already (buy can
>you really have "enough" speed) but it would be sweet to use all of
>these signals at once to create a really fat pipe (especially when
>walking around the house with my notebook). I am a podcast/vidcast
>junkie so I could actually use some more bandwidth. I use XP and i
>have an old Linux box (Slackware, but will consider changing or adding
>a box [thanks used university supply store]) so I can go either route
>(I am ok with Linux [command line etc] but *not* a guru) in terms of
>OSes. Does anyone out there have any suggestions or recommendations on
>how to go about this or know of any good HOWTOs (the simpler the
>better) about this? Any help would be greatly appreciated!


Simply not possible. IF the ISP at the far end were the same, and if that
ISP were willing to multilink the pipes into one, then maybe, but tough.

<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message...
> Hi, I have two neighbors that have wifi g/b (for email, it kills me)
> that have said it would be ok if I mooched off of them a bit (in case
> your wondering, I am considering throwing in a few bucks a month if
> this works). I already have DSL so I have decent speed already (buy can
> you really have "enough" speed) but it would be sweet to use all of
> these signals at once to create a really fat pipe

I did something like that many years ago, although with dialup modems and
some software that I no longer remember the name of.

Used one modem with my commercial dialup ISP at the time, and the other with
my dialup .edu

Like Jeff said, you get two streams -- not one big fat combined pipe.

Kinda like having a dual processor computer (and dual processor capable OS),
but using applications that can only take advantage of one processor. You
simply just point each application to use one or the other CPU's. The
program I used for the modems was the similiar concept.

As for mooching, my neighbors have broadband, but no wireless hardware. One
of my repeaters spills into their backyard, which I let them mooch from
though. They use it often during the summer with their laptops. As I
config'd their laptops to be able to use it, obviously I could care less.

Cheers!
-Eric

On 1-Dec-2005, Unruh <unruh-(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Simply not possible. IF the ISP at the far end were the same, and if that
> ISP were willing to multilink the pipes into one, then maybe, but tough.

If through the one ISP, there would still the problem of connections
being no faster than the slowest link in the chain, and with
intense competition and pricecutting, whether your ISP is
buying enough bandwidth into Telehouse and LINX.

"Eric" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message...
>> Hi, I have two neighbors that have wifi g/b (for email, it kills me)
>> that have said it would be ok if I mooched off of them a bit (in case
>> your wondering, I am considering throwing in a few bucks a month if
>> this works). I already have DSL so I have decent speed already (buy can
>> you really have "enough" speed) but it would be sweet to use all of
>> these signals at once to create a really fat pipe

>I did something like that many years ago, although with dialup modems and
>some software that I no longer remember the name of.

>Used one modem with my commercial dialup ISP at the time, and the other with
>my dialup .edu

>Like Jeff said, you get two streams -- not one big fat combined pipe.

>Kinda like having a dual processor computer (and dual processor capable OS),
>but using applications that can only take advantage of one processor. You
>simply just point each application to use one or the other CPU's. The
>program I used for the modems was the similiar concept.

What you have to do is alter the routing tables on your machine to tell it
which line to send out and receive the material for a specific material.
YOu will also need to make sure that you have different IP addresses on the
two streams or only one will get used for the return. This means that you
need to dynamically alter your routing tables depending on which two places
you want to connect to.


>As for mooching, my neighbors have broadband, but no wireless hardware. One
>of my repeaters spills into their backyard, which I let them mooch from
>though. They use it often during the summer with their laptops. As I
>config'd their laptops to be able to use it, obviously I could care less.

Well, if you care so much, you should probably do something about it.
(Or maybe you wanted to say that you couldn't care less).


>Cheers!
>-Eric

Unruh wrote in
dmnjrt$12o$(E-Mail Removed):

> "Eric" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>
>> As I config'd their laptops to be able to use
>> it, obviously I could care less.
>
> Well, if you care so much, you should probably do something about it.
> (Or maybe you wanted to say that you couldn't care less).

I think "I could care less" is an American form of the phrase which we more
logically render as "I couldn't care less" - in other words "I don't care".
It's like the phrase (used by older people) "let's see what we can't
achieve" which means "let's see what we *can* achieve" - "let's achieve as
much (rather than as little) as possible".


Eric, have you secured your network (eg using WPA encryption) to stop other
people than your neighbours accessing the wireless network? You might be
happy letting anyone use your Internet connection, but are they also able to
access shares on your PCs?

"Martin Underwood" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message ..
> Eric, have you secured your network (eg using WPA encryption) to stop
other
> people than your neighbours accessing the wireless network?

Nope. It is open, by choice. I'm using a captive portal with it though.

>You might be happy letting anyone use your Internet connection, but are
they also able to
> access shares on your PCs?

My WLAN is a completetly seperate physical network. It is secure.

Cheers,
Eric

yes it's is possible but

Windows got one gateway and can be done by Nat32 software
but not simultanius

A router can do it !



On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 01:19:11 GMT, "Eric" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
>"Martin Underwood" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message ..
>> Eric, have you secured your network (eg using WPA encryption) to stop
>other
>> people than your neighbours accessing the wireless network?
>
>Nope. It is open, by choice. I'm using a captive portal with it though.
>
>>You might be happy letting anyone use your Internet connection, but are
>they also able to
>> access shares on your PCs?
>
>My WLAN is a completetly seperate physical network. It is secure.
>
>Cheers,
>Eric
>
>
>

In MsgID<(E-Mail Removed) oups.com> within
uk.comp.home-networking, '(E-Mail Removed)' wrote:

>Hi, I have two neighbors that have wifi g/b (for email, it kills me)
>that have said it would be ok if I mooched off of them a bit (in case
>your wondering, I am considering throwing in a few bucks a month if
>this works). I already have DSL so I have decent speed already (buy can
>you really have "enough" speed) but it would be sweet to use all of
>these signals at once to create a really fat pipe (especially when
>walking around the house with my notebook).

I don't know if it would fit with your use of the bandwidth but for
windows there's a piece of connection teaming software called 'Midpoint'.

It's intended to make use of multiple links to the internet by sharing the
connections out between them. For example it seperates the various
connections when viewing a web page and it automagically does partial file
requests on larger downloads, both ftp and http.

It operates as a NAT gateway and as SOCKS proxy servers. If your WIFI
linkup can be presented as a NIC or as an ethernet connection then it will
fit with the sharing.

As I said, I don't know if it's right, the other disadvantages are a) that
it is no longer supported by its company and b) it is not freeware.

Quickest place to read about it is

http://www.homenethelp.com/web/revie...nt-sharing.asp

and if that grabs your interest then there are excellent PDF documents
that arrive with the package, downloadable from

ftp://ftp.midpoint.com/pub/download/midpoint.zip

though the homepage is currently offline.

I researched it about a year ago and this was the best possibility I
found.

Dave J.