[RndTbl] aggregating dsl lines

[Brock Wolfe]

Are there any reasons for not considering commercial (backbone) wireless 
gear for connecting points.  It is a common practice for multi-building 
sites where project funds (or other constraints) prevent wired/fibre 
connections between buildings.



On 9/29/2015 10:48 AM, roundtable-request at muug.mb.ca wrote:
> Send Roundtable mailing list submissions to
> 	roundtable at muug.mb.ca
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> 	http://www.muug.mb.ca/mailman/listinfo/roundtable
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> 	roundtable-request at muug.mb.ca
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 	roundtable-owner at muug.mb.ca
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Roundtable digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>     1. aggregating dsl lines (Trevor Cordes)
>     2. Re: aggregating dsl lines (Colin Stanners)
>     3. Re: aggregating dsl lines (Robert Keizer)
>     4. Re: aggregating dsl lines (Adam Thompson)
>     5. Re: aggregating dsl lines (Adam Thompson)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 04:18:54 -0500
> From: Trevor Cordes <trevor at tecnopolis.ca>
> To: MUUG RndTbl <roundtable at muug.mb.ca>
> Subject: [RndTbl] aggregating dsl lines
> Message-ID: <20150929091854.GA13606 at pog.tecnopolis.ca>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> Is it possible to aggregate DSL lines, to combine them to get X-times the
> bandwidth on a single link?  In this situation, I control both ends, the
> DSLAM and the DSL modem side on the other end of some POTS runs (CAT3-ish
> I assume, or worse).
>
> Note, I don't want load balancing or fancy routing/sharing.  I need double
> (or more) the bandwidth for a single application (single TCP connection).
>
> If required, we can have linux/bsd boxes we control at either end of the
> links.
>
> If it's not possible, does anyone have any other ideas for somehow getting
> better bandwidth out of 500m POTS wires (quantity 4)?
>
> Thanks!
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 07:09:51 -0500
> From: Colin Stanners <cstanners at gmail.com>
> To: Continuation of Round Table discussion <roundtable at muug.mb.ca>
> Subject: Re: [RndTbl] aggregating dsl lines
> Message-ID:
> 	<CAPoOROw+CvZAq_O2T+b0M7zukSEaydm10KzYCd6=fougATzkyg at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> At layers 2/3 you can do Multilink PPP or even something wierd and
> questionably reliable like LACP over Ethernet-over-IP over the individual
> connections, but given that it's only 500m and you control both ends the
> best solution would likely be at
> http://www.netsys-direct.com/Ethernet_Extenders_s/1814.htm , particularly
> http://www.netsys-direct.com/product_p/nv-600ekit.htm
>
> On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 4:18 AM, Trevor Cordes <trevor at tecnopolis.ca> wrote:
>
>> Is it possible to aggregate DSL lines, to combine them to get X-times the
>> bandwidth on a single link?  In this situation, I control both ends, the
>> DSLAM and the DSL modem side on the other end of some POTS runs (CAT3-ish
>> I assume, or worse).
>>
>> Note, I don't want load balancing or fancy routing/sharing.  I need double
>> (or more) the bandwidth for a single application (single TCP connection).
>>
>> If required, we can have linux/bsd boxes we control at either end of the
>> links.
>>
>> If it's not possible, does anyone have any other ideas for somehow getting
>> better bandwidth out of 500m POTS wires (quantity 4)?
>>
>> Thanks!
>> _______________________________________________
>> Roundtable mailing list
>> Roundtable at muug.mb.ca
>> http://www.muug.mb.ca/mailman/listinfo/roundtable
>>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://www.muug.mb.ca/pipermail/roundtable/attachments/20150929/9a5888a9/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 07:44:25 -0500
> From: Robert Keizer <robert at keizer.ca>
> To: Continuation of Round Table discussion <roundtable at muug.mb.ca>
> Subject: Re: [RndTbl] aggregating dsl lines
> Message-ID:
> 	<CACf6nbiM=q7ww0u4iWscjgP1fG7E81trd1SVqHA_1+8pfPANgg at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> If you can put a box at both ends you can do compression between them with
> an arbitrary size lookup table that is dynamic based on the traffic.
>
> To get the single TCP connection going over both you'll need to go up the
> stack - PPP or ipsec is what I would go with. You can't get away with a
> simple carp system unfortunately.
>
> Either way I don't see how you don't have ecmp or similar over the lower
> link and run a tunnel with IP inside it.
>
> Rob
> On Sep 29, 2015 7:10 AM, "Colin Stanners" <cstanners at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> At layers 2/3 you can do Multilink PPP or even something wierd and
>> questionably reliable like LACP over Ethernet-over-IP over the individual
>> connections, but given that it's only 500m and you control both ends the
>> best solution would likely be at
>> http://www.netsys-direct.com/Ethernet_Extenders_s/1814.htm ,
>> particularly  http://www.netsys-direct.com/product_p/nv-600ekit.htm
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 4:18 AM, Trevor Cordes <trevor at tecnopolis.ca>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Is it possible to aggregate DSL lines, to combine them to get X-times the
>>> bandwidth on a single link?  In this situation, I control both ends, the
>>> DSLAM and the DSL modem side on the other end of some POTS runs (CAT3-ish
>>> I assume, or worse).
>>>
>>> Note, I don't want load balancing or fancy routing/sharing.  I need double
>>> (or more) the bandwidth for a single application (single TCP connection).
>>>
>>> If required, we can have linux/bsd boxes we control at either end of the
>>> links.
>>>
>>> If it's not possible, does anyone have any other ideas for somehow getting
>>> better bandwidth out of 500m POTS wires (quantity 4)?
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Roundtable mailing list
>>> Roundtable at muug.mb.ca
>>> http://www.muug.mb.ca/mailman/listinfo/roundtable
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Roundtable mailing list
>> Roundtable at muug.mb.ca
>> http://www.muug.mb.ca/mailman/listinfo/roundtable
>>
>>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://www.muug.mb.ca/pipermail/roundtable/attachments/20150929/b381c5df/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 08:09:32 -0500
> From: Adam Thompson <athompso at athompso.net>
> To: Continuation of Round Table discussion <roundtable at muug.mb.ca>,
> 	Trevor Cordes <trevor at tecnopolis.ca>, MUUG RndTbl
> 	<roundtable at muug.mb.ca>
> Subject: Re: [RndTbl] aggregating dsl lines
> Message-ID: <2F92160B-19B2-43A4-8967-559126E86017 at athompso.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> This is an active area of research, particularly with the advent of multi-path TCP.
> Presently, however, you have to hide the two-link-ness from the TCP layer, and essentially from the IP layer as well.
> ECMP would work, as long as both lines are the same (this does not hold true as a dynamic assertion with DSL technology, *ever*).
> LACP will *not* work.
> If you have Linux boxes at both ends, you can use mod_bonding in its round-robin mode... I've done that in the past and it does work.
>
> Far more effective, however, would be to upgrade to a symmetric VDSL2 setup that supports DSL bonded pairs.
> That'll set you back around $600+ per end, IIRC, replaces both the DSLAM and the DSLR, but makes your problems go away by turning all the copper into a single Ethernet link.
>
> I just worked with someone else on this kind of setup, I'll see if I can find the links...
>
> -Adam
>
> On September 29, 2015 4:18:54 AM CDT, Trevor Cordes <trevor at tecnopolis.ca> wrote:
>> Is it possible to aggregate DSL lines, to combine them to get X-times
>> the
>> bandwidth on a single link?  In this situation, I control both ends,
>> the
>> DSLAM and the DSL modem side on the other end of some POTS runs
>> (CAT3-ish
>> I assume, or worse).
>>
>> Note, I don't want load balancing or fancy routing/sharing.  I need
>> double
>> (or more) the bandwidth for a single application (single TCP
>> connection).
>>
>> If required, we can have linux/bsd boxes we control at either end of
>> the
>> links.
>>
>> If it's not possible, does anyone have any other ideas for somehow
>> getting
>> better bandwidth out of 500m POTS wires (quantity 4)?
>>
>> Thanks!
>> _______________________________________________
>> Roundtable mailing list
>> Roundtable at muug.mb.ca
>> http://www.muug.mb.ca/mailman/listinfo/roundtable