|
Posted by James Knott on November 24, 2005, 6:58 am
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
f/fgeorge wrote:
>>I have no idea about business rates, but even ignoring that, there are
>>still the routing and load balancing to consider.
> There are routers that will do this automatically.
No matter what you have, you cannot load balance over two completely
independent connections, without cooperation of the two ISPs. At best, you
can attempt to forward traffic to the two routes as a form of balancing,
but you won't get proper balancing. That is one a TCP connection starts on
one path, it has to stay on that path. You cannot, for example, split a
large transfer over the two paths.
|
 
| |
Posted by f/fgeorge on November 24, 2005, 9:13 am
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 06:58:31 -0500, James Knott
>f/fgeorge wrote:
>
>>>I have no idea about business rates, but even ignoring that, there are
>>>still the routing and load balancing to consider.
>> There are routers that will do this automatically.
>
>No matter what you have, you cannot load balance over two completely
>independent connections, without cooperation of the two ISPs. At best, you
>can attempt to forward traffic to the two routes as a form of balancing,
>but you won't get proper balancing. That is one a TCP connection starts on
>one path, it has to stay on that path. You cannot, for example, split a
>large transfer over the two paths.
>
Then perhaps you should look at the Cisco stuff or even here:
http://www.broadbandbuyer.co.uk/Shop/ShopSearch.asp?CategoryID=48&ShopGroupID=12&Alt=Yes
Yes it can be done and quite well, remember we are talking about
downloading and uploading files here. They come from and go to a
specific point on the net. The order they are received makes no
difference just that the whole file is sent or received.
|
|
Posted by David H. Lipman on November 24, 2005, 1:00 pm
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
| $Bill wrote:
|
>> David already supplied a solution.
|
| ???
|
| The only note I see from him, is the one about the ToS.
Why ?
I posted twice in this thread ?
{ this makes 3 times }
--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm
|
|
Posted by James Knott on November 24, 2005, 8:40 pm
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
> | The only note I see from him, is the one about the ToS.
>
> Why ?
At the time I posted the above, I could only see the one entry from you.
Now there are multiple.
|
|
Posted by James Knott on November 24, 2005, 8:31 pm
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
> On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 06:58:31 -0500, James Knott
>
>>f/fgeorge wrote:
>>
>>>>I have no idea about business rates, but even ignoring that, there are
>>>>still the routing and load balancing to consider.
>>> There are routers that will do this automatically.
>>
>>No matter what you have, you cannot load balance over two completely
>>independent connections, without cooperation of the two ISPs. At best,
>>you can attempt to forward traffic to the two routes as a form of
>>balancing,
>>but you won't get proper balancing. That is one a TCP connection starts
>>on
>>one path, it has to stay on that path. You cannot, for example, split a
>>large transfer over the two paths.
>>
> Then perhaps you should look at the Cisco stuff or even here:
>
http://www.broadbandbuyer.co.uk/Shop/ShopSearch.asp?CategoryID=48&ShopGroupID=12&Alt=Yes
> Yes it can be done and quite well, remember we are talking about
> downloading and uploading files here. They come from and go to a
> specific point on the net. The order they are received makes no
> difference just that the whole file is sent or received.
Perhaps you'd better take the time to understand how TCP works. When you
use TCP, for file transfer, telnet, ssh, etc., all communication is done
according to IP address & port pairs, commonly known as sockets. This
means that you cannot arbitrarily change the source or destination
addresses of packets within a TCP stream. Assume you have two internet
connections "A" with an address of 1.1.1.1 and "B" with 2.2.2.2. Now, if
you open a TCP connection from A, all packets for that connection must go
through A, in order to maintain the proper address for the TCP connection.
Also, there is no way for a computer at the other end to even know about
the B address, so it cannot even send a packet to it. Such limitations do
not occur with UDP data, though the application may choke on a different
address. Now as for those devices you linked to. You'll notice they talk
a lot about VPN and VoIP. Those are two systems that generally use UDP or
other connectionless protocol, so they can make use of the split path,
including TCP connections, via VPN, between two points, where those boxes
are located. Those boxes will not work for TCP traffic, from a single
point, to the internet at large. You need one of those boxes at each end
of the redundant paths. So, if you have two offices and want to have two
links between them, sure those boxes will work. On the other hand, if you
have only one box and two connections, your TCP traffic will get absolutely
no benefit, other than if you can force traffic over the different paths.
Even that will require that the computers on your local network are
configured to work with one or the other ISP.
|
| Similar Threads | Posted | | home network and sonos audio with comcast | July 27, 2006, 9:26 pm |
| COMCAST internet | April 2, 2008, 3:42 am |
| Good low cost home VPN solution? | February 26, 2006, 1:06 pm |
| how to access my computer at home form another location | September 26, 2006, 2:34 pm |
| Newbie Cable Modem Home Network Question | February 6, 2005, 5:44 am |
| Re: Comcast High Speed Internet Availability ... | August 24, 2008, 8:55 pm |
| Comcast High Speed Internet Availability ... | August 24, 2008, 8:20 pm |
| Comcast "business" cable internet; blocking IPSec ISAKMP? | December 6, 2005, 9:43 pm |
| Can't get internet using Comcast cable modem and Lynksys WRT54G router | January 30, 2006, 12:32 am |
| The ISP giving leased line to home(cat5), wants to configure static private IP addr, can I use Router?. | October 1, 2005, 5:14 am |
|
|
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML site map