pom wrote:
> there is no faster upstream connection available unless spending
£700+
> per month which is not an option.
>
> There are hardware solutions like this
> http://www.xrio.co.uk/product-c1000.asp bu I really would like a
linux
> solution. Of coure it may not be technically possible with linux ?
This is not really combining (more accurately "bonding/aggregating")
the link.
[q]
Does the Cyclone give me a single "fat pipe" of the combined bandwidth?
No, this is "bonding" and due to the nature of TCP/IP, this is not
possible. The Cyclone will distribute traffic across all available
Internet connections which will achieve the increased bandwidth offered
to clients.
[eq]
See:
http://linux-ip.net/html/ether-bonding.html
Ie., they are offering connection/route based redistribution of the
load, not really load balancing.
And despite what they imply, it _is_ possible, _if_ both ends of the
link are set up for it, at the _link_ level. ISPs don't have an
incentive to do so -- that's why they sell a fatter pipe connection
(for more $, ayk). In fact they use it as an example of combined VPN
pipe between two sites:
[q]
Cyclone 800 with VPN Load Balancing.
The Cyclone 800 can be used to add resilience and increased bandwidth
to Virtual Private Networks between 2 locations. ***Each*** site has 2
Internet connections ***and a Cyclone 800***. A mesh of VPN tunnels are
created ***between the two Cyclones***, thus seeming to the LAN as one
virtual tunnel. If a link is to go down, even at both sides of the VPN,
traffic can still pass over the VPN. Traffic is load balanced on a
"per-packet" basis and so a single connection can achieve a faster
download than a single line. This is a unique feature and is a great
solution for VPN's across ADSL links where the upload speed is limited.
[eq] ***emphasis added***
You would need similar link level cooperation from your ISP, as others
have said, in order to achieve "real, transparent" load balancing.
You might be able to achieve "connection" based "balancing", but it's
effect is _very_ dependent on traffic profile and provides no failover.
In fact, with all lines going to one ISP (and one ISP router) if the
ISP's net goes down you lose connectivity in either case. Your only
failover protection would be for modem failure on your end.
You can look at these and decide if you really want to diy rather than
using a hosting provider for your offered (uploaded, eg., httpd)
services and use your ISP connection(s) for your network's "download"
use.
http://lartc.org/howto/lartc.rpdb.multiple-links.html
http://linux-ip.net/html/adv-multi-internet.html
There are some additional approaches you can use that will redistribute
(spread) the load but they involve similar setup and maintainence
efforts as the above.
hth,
prg
email above disabled