Solos multiport DSL cards

Anyone using one [or more] of these babies:

http://linitx.com/viewproduct.php?prodid=12607

Solos PCI ADSL2+ Modem - 4 Port

Question is prompted by someone who has 5 ADSL2+M lines, and wants to
terminate them all in one router. Cisco seems to top out at 4 ports per
chassis [at least on their branch routers], and one of these four-port
cards costs less than a single HWIC-1ADSL-M from Cisco! I was thinking
two of these 4-porters [or a 4 and a 2] in a box running Vyatta.

--
<http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) ((E-Mail Removed))
10:52:33 up 23:56, 2 users, load average: 0.28, 0.23, 0.19
It is better to have been wasted and then sober
than to never have been wasted at all

In article <hppime$7vn$(E-Mail Removed)>,
alexd <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>Anyone using one [or more] of these babies:
>
>http://linitx.com/viewproduct.php?prodid=12607
>
>Solos PCI ADSL2+ Modem - 4 Port
>
>Question is prompted by someone who has 5 ADSL2+M lines, and wants to
>terminate them all in one router. Cisco seems to top out at 4 ports per
>chassis [at least on their branch routers], and one of these four-port
>cards costs less than a single HWIC-1ADSL-M from Cisco! I was thinking
>two of these 4-porters [or a 4 and a 2] in a box running Vyatta.

Be intersted to know if it works...

A bit more cabling (and mains wall warts), but if it's not looking likely,
how about 5 Draytek 120's (ADSL Modems) plugged into an Ethernet switch
connected to a Linux box - the back-end will then be running 5 x PPPoE
links - the modems acting as PPPoE <-> PPPoA converters...

You'd probably need to re-configure the Drayteks to use different IP
addresses on their internal ethernet links - they're usually fixed to
192.168.1.1 for the box and the first DHCP devices gets 192.168.1.10...

Gordon

On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 07:30:18 +0000, Gordon Henderson wrote:

> In article <hppime$7vn$(E-Mail Removed)>, alexd
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>Anyone using one [or more] of these babies:
>>
>>http://linitx.com/viewproduct.php?prodid=12607
>>
>>Solos PCI ADSL2+ Modem - 4 Port
>>
>>Question is prompted by someone who has 5 ADSL2+M lines, and wants to
>>terminate them all in one router. Cisco seems to top out at 4 ports per
>>chassis [at least on their branch routers], and one of these four-port
>>cards costs less than a single HWIC-1ADSL-M from Cisco! I was thinking
>>two of these 4-porters [or a 4 and a 2] in a box running Vyatta.
>
> Be intersted to know if it works...
>
> A bit more cabling (and mains wall warts), but if it's not looking
> likely, how about 5 Draytek 120's (ADSL Modems) plugged into an Ethernet
> switch connected to a Linux box - the back-end will then be running 5 x
> PPPoE links - the modems acting as PPPoE <-> PPPoA converters...
>
> You'd probably need to re-configure the Drayteks to use different IP
> addresses on their internal ethernet links - they're usually fixed to
> 192.168.1.1 for the box and the first DHCP devices gets 192.168.1.10...
>
> Gordon

Are they 'buy one get one free' in Toys-r-us?

On 11/04/10 08:30, Gordon Henderson wrote:

> A bit more cabling (and mains wall warts), but if it's not looking likely,
> how about 5 Draytek 120's (ADSL Modems) plugged into an Ethernet switch
> connected to a Linux box - the back-end will then be running 5 x PPPoE
> links - the modems acting as PPPoE<-> PPPoA converters...

That's an interesting idea. I'd be using a Cisco as the PPPoE client as
they've got to have one anyway, but it's certainly a lot easier to get
multiple routed ethernet ports into one chassis than DSL interfaces.

As for the Solos card, the drivers are in the mainline kernel tree so
getting it working should be easy enough.

--
<http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) ((E-Mail Removed))
10:01:27 up 1 day, 23:06, 2 users, load average: 0.30, 0.24, 0.14
It is better to have been wasted and then sober
than to never have been wasted at all

On 14/04/10 15:37, bod43 wrote:

> If your ISP does multilink ppp then this is all
> straightforward enough.

MLPPP is why I was interested in the card. As it turns out, however, the
ISP is supplying a 28xx with 4 DSL WICs so it's moot anyway.

> If you use per destination load balancing (as opposed to
> per packet) some of these issues will I suppose go away
> but I can imagine that some web sites may not work if
> some traffic to the multi host site comes from one IP
> and other traffic from another.

Yes, you need to be able to specify source/destination binding,
otherwise you get users complaining about banking websites &c not
working. This then means the load balancing isn't as optimal [because
you're balancing connections, not packets] but for the SMBs I'm thinking
of, a few broadbands + some kit is still way more cost effective than
BT's Excess Construction Charges estimate!

> These may help.
>
> http://www.dslreports.com/faq/14086
> The "third party ISP" VPN solution is quite a
> neat idea.

I can imagine odd performance problems if there's any significant
difference in latency across the two connections, to the site where the
VPN terminates.

> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13140833
> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/coll...11-458124.html
>
> Cisco have renamed Optimised Edge Routing to Performance Routing.
> Oh dear.

The last guide I read to OER had a show-stopping restriction in that you
had to find one IP from each ISP that was only ever reachable from that
ISP in order for the link failure detection to work. Maybe it's time to
have another look at IOS.

ASA load balancing is a complete non-starter it would appear. Cisco
really need to pull something out of the hat for ASA2, because even the
lowliest Sonicwall can do outbound load balancing on four internet
connections [per connection, percentage based, spillover,
active/passive, you name it], doesn't have #user restrictions and costs
less to boot!

--
<http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) ((E-Mail Removed))
19:46:13 up 5 days, 8:56, 2 users, load average: 0.38, 0.23, 0.18
It is better to have been wasted and then sober
than to never have been wasted at all

alexd <(E-Mail Removed)> considered Wed, 14 Apr 2010 20:17:32
+0100 the perfect time to write:

>On 14/04/10 15:37, bod43 wrote:
>
>> If your ISP does multilink ppp then this is all
>> straightforward enough.
>
>MLPPP is why I was interested in the card. As it turns out, however, the
>ISP is supplying a 28xx with 4 DSL WICs so it's moot anyway.
>
>> If you use per destination load balancing (as opposed to
>> per packet) some of these issues will I suppose go away
>> but I can imagine that some web sites may not work if
>> some traffic to the multi host site comes from one IP
>> and other traffic from another.
>
>Yes, you need to be able to specify source/destination binding,
>otherwise you get users complaining about banking websites &c not
>working. This then means the load balancing isn't as optimal [because
>you're balancing connections, not packets] but for the SMBs I'm thinking
>of, a few broadbands + some kit is still way more cost effective than
>BT's Excess Construction Charges estimate!
>
>> These may help.
>>
>> http://www.dslreports.com/faq/14086
>> The "third party ISP" VPN solution is quite a
>> neat idea.
>
>I can imagine odd performance problems if there's any significant
>difference in latency across the two connections, to the site where the
>VPN terminates.
>
>> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13140833
>> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/coll...11-458124.html
>>
>> Cisco have renamed Optimised Edge Routing to Performance Routing.
>> Oh dear.
>
>The last guide I read to OER had a show-stopping restriction in that you
>had to find one IP from each ISP that was only ever reachable from that
>ISP in order for the link failure detection to work. Maybe it's time to
>have another look at IOS.
>
>ASA load balancing is a complete non-starter it would appear. Cisco
>really need to pull something out of the hat for ASA2, because even the
>lowliest Sonicwall can do outbound load balancing on four internet
>connections [per connection, percentage based, spillover,
>active/passive, you name it], doesn't have #user restrictions and costs
>less to boot!

This seems to have gone badly backwards in the last decade or so.
I was using link aggregation, bandwidth-on-demand, and similar tricks
15 years ago.
You had to when the quickest link you could get was a kilostream.