Anyone any views or experience with this ? Jim.
My view is that if I were to shell out for two line rentals + two ISP rentals on said lines, I'd forego the benefits of ADSL channel bonding, and instead use two ISPs for extra resilience. Bonding at the xDSL layer is better than at the IP layer; for example, it's better at inbound load balancing. In an ideal world, everyone would have their own subnet, and if you wanted to load balance with extra connections, you'd announce your range down all your lines, tweak the metrics and away you go. Maybe that's an over-simplified view of it.
Some ADSL ISPs already provide a native IPv6 service (with a usual allocation of a /64 - single subnet - or a /48 - 2^16 subnets). Now that VM is rolling out DOCSIS 3 hopefully they will follow soon. Sadly, I cannot see many ISP's offering a peering service to consumers. It would be a huge amount of work for which the ISP would gain little. I would be happy to be proved wrong!
Coo. To work seamlessly to two ISP's requires you to run BGP and although ISP's allow it they charge, and you have to be shown to be competent. And sign a lot of paper. And run a router capable of holding the world internet routing tables.. Someone who is announcing BGP routes can in theory bring the whole internet to its knees, and it has been done. So normally the upstream parties would filter these out, but that adds overhead to the boundary routers.. No, its far more likely you will run a machine on two IP addresses on two cards with each card having its own default route to its own ISP.. one via each ISP and use random DNS to see which way the packets come. Even that is pretty complex if all you want is more bandwidth, which is why channel bonding works best for most people.
I asked earlier is it the 2 telephone line system to be introduced by Be that we are talking about. I'm with Be now with their upto 24 meg. and they are excellent. This is from Think Broadband site. Be fight back with 45Mbps bonded broadband Tuesday 16 December 2008 15:46:19 by John Hunt Be Broadband, the ISP owned by O2's parent company, Telefonica, have announced today the successful completion of their bonded broadband trial which ran on the London Paddington exchange. The trial was mainly aimed at understanding the technical capabilities involved using ADSL2+ over two telephone lines which were bonded together to make one line. Customers reported real-world speeds of between 30Mbps and 45Mbps- just 5Mbps shy of Virgin's headline 50meg speed. Be will be carrying out further trials through 2009. A single twisted pair copper phone line is limited in how fast it can transfer data, and connecting multiple lines together is one solution to try and increase the bandwidth without deploying equipment closer to the exchange such as in the BT FTTC trials. One drawback of bonding is that you will need to pay for two telephone lines, one for each DSL line, which will increase the cost. DSL does also vary speed depending on the distance from the exchange (unlike the Virgin cable services) and so the highest speeds will only be available to those who live the closest. "We want to push the limits of high-speed broadband. We already offer the fastest possible broadband on an ADSL line, but we want to take it a step further. If you want broadband around the 50Mb mark but don't want to go the cable route, Be wants to offer you a real alternative." Felix Geyr, (Managing Director) Be Broadband One point worth making is that although Be services are not limited to the area of the Virgin cable network, many of the exchanges where Be provide service will overlap with Virgin, and this will also leave many areas of the UK unable to get either Virgin's 50meg of the Be bonded broadband. Competition will breed new services though and if other providers are able to offer similar services to Virgin's 50meg soon, maybe Virgin will be forced to up the speed sooner than they thought if they want to keep the crown of fastest broadband. Regards, David Please reply to News Group
I don't know what Jim was specifically asking about but. AAISP have been offering channel bonding for some time now on ADSL. They also offer it with ADSL2+ if you are on an exchange that has been upgraded to 21CN and WBC by BT. They do not limit you to just two lines, you can have whatever you are willing to pay for: http://aaisp.net.uk/kb-broadband-bonding.html They have also been offering ipv6 for some time in spite of BT not officially supporting it.
A few years back now. Client in magazine publishing with lots of images to be transferred quickly and reliably. Got Andrews & Arnold to set it all up and worked a treat with pretty close to doubling of capacity iirc.
I would be tempted to have a separate connection for VOIP Can you bond across different ISPs? You do have some redundancy against a line fault.
There are a few ISPs that will do bonding - I think only on the dataStream products though - until now, and as Be have their own kit in the exchange, I guess they can do anything with it... Same here.. Unless it's additional bandwidth you want... You can't "bond", but you can load-share. so if you had 2 x 8Mb lines, one person could still only get 8Mb, but a 2nd person could also get 8Mb at the same time. With true bonding, one person could get 16Mb. It's not without it's problems though, but with the right kit it can be made to work very well. You need to make sure that the data stays going over one line for a "session" (whatever that might be) and try to avoid asymetric routing (data coming in one line and the replies going out the other) but there are routers that will do all this for you. (as well as linux solutions) Gordon
i dont see why a bonded connection is unusable for voip. Not really. he weakest link is the ceapest link: you to the exchange. No redunancy there really. Ok its extra wires, but the usual thing is the digger through the whole conduit ;-) ISPS have their own redundancies. i've seen some bloody weird routings in my time..USA via IIRC Finland was one..
There are issues to be taken care of, but they're not insurmountable. You just need to make sure your phones [or rather, your voice subnet] only ever get routed down one line; having your SIP traffic and your RTP stream traversing different lines could cause all sorts of hilarity.
But the whole point of bonding is that it IS one line. Hell you cant even rely on the rest of the internet having fixed routing..if an ISP has two pipes going to the same place chances are they will load share over them with equal weight routes.
Sorry, I trimmed the bit of the post where we were talking about load balancing across 2 ISPs from behind NAT. Of course proper bonding is completely invisible to the upper layers so should work with any application.
OK, but I still don't see that as an issue for VOIP. Diverse routing and asymmetric routing are all part of the Internet at large, anyway.
You might not, but I can tell you that SIP and certain other VoIP endpoints get very confused when their traffic isn't consistently routed down one line or the other. But the internet at large [ie once your traffic has left your router] doesn't use NAPT [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_address_translation].
No good for VOIP though I have a pair of AAISP bonded lines with a Firebrick 105 at my end. The main reason for bonding is to get better voip performance, as the uplink bandwidth is almost doubled. I can get data transfer rates of about 1.3Mbit/s uplink and 10Mbit/s downlink, although it is hard to find other sites which can support these speeds. Each line by itself syncs at 800kbit/s uplink and 6 to 6.5Mbit/s downlink. Redundancy does help, as sometimes BT kill one line without affecting the other. Sending alternate packets down each line does not seem to cause problems, perhaps because the lines have very similar characteristics.
