Bounty: $2000 for OpenMPTCProuter-like Functionality in pfSense
-
Since my 2011 bounty for adding IPv6 support to pfSense was such a resounding success, I am posting a new bounty, which I just increased in size to $2000 while clarifying scope.
$2000 in your hands for adding roughly equivalent functionality to that found in OpenMPTCProuter, but built on top of pfSense, instead of Openwrt, to pfSense. What I am looking for is
There is an existing MMTCP feature request in Redmine which is also assigned as a feature for an "indeterminate later release" on the pfSense roadmap.
To put it bluntly, upstream not ever provide this feature and waiting for upstream is futile.
The new Wireguard implementation proved that such a feature can be implemented without the help of upstream.
Many users with more than one, relatively slow (under 1 Gbps) uplink will want/need this feature. Myself included, who is stuck behind a mix of VDSL, Starlink, and 5G because decent speed uplinks are unavailable to private individuals in Berlin, where I am currently staying at. Even fiber (with a connection fee of €15,000) tops out at 1 Gbps.
If you are qualified to work on this bounty, please get in touch with me.
@jim would have to agree to review your contribution, since the key MPTCP feature is assigned to Jim.
Thanks,
-- Lucky -
@shamrock I'll add $500 on top of your bounty.
-
@shamrock said in Bounty: $2000 for OpenMPTCProuter-like Functionality in pfSense:
Since my 2011 bounty for adding IPv6 support to pfSense was such a resounding success, I am posting a new bounty, which I just increased in size to $2000 while clarifying scope.
$2000 in your hands for adding roughly equivalent functionality to that found in OpenMPTCProuter, but built on top of pfSense, instead of Openwrt, to pfSense. What I am looking for is
There is an existing MMTCP feature request in Redmine which is also assigned as a feature for an "indeterminate later release" on the pfSense roadmap.
To put it bluntly, upstream not ever provide this feature and waiting for upstream is futile.
The new Wireguard implementation proved that such a feature can be implemented without the help of upstream.
Many users with more than one, relatively slow (under 1 Gbps) uplink will want/need this feature. Myself included, who is stuck behind a mix of VDSL, Starlink, and 5G because decent speed uplinks are unavailable to private individuals in Berlin, where I am currently staying at. Even fiber (with a connection fee of €15,000) tops out at 1 Gbps.
If you are qualified to work on this bounty, please get in touch with me.
@jim would have to agree to review your contribution, since the key MPTCP feature is assigned to Jim.
Thanks,
-- LuckyNot able to adding (because all our money here in a Ukraine we spending on Army support), but voting by both my hands and wish to find professional devs! Good luck!
P.S. In Ukraine we also using pfSense with a mix of fiber, Starlink, 5G, even 3G because a lot of infrastructure damages by russian bombers. ;) Really great product!
-
@shamrock Would love to have functionality included in pfsense as well!
-
Explain why this is important?
The router connects to a VPS? Why?
-
@Cool_Corona It's not really the VPS, but the point of true packet level bonding/aggregation, which the VPS helps aid in. In the sense, say you have 3 WAN's. for this example, lets take Starlink, maybe a cable provider, and a local WISP, with load balancing, you would not get the benefit of all of them, with true bonding, you are able to utilize the speed of all them, and use the VPS as the outgoing communication as that is where all the traffic comes to and from. OpenMPTCProuter has this function built in, but to have something like it, could really offer pfsense as a whole, a whole new world of capability in this area. Having this feature could unlock pfsense to be used in more applications and cement it further into enterprise and rural environments alike with little downside, as many people have dual WAN's and I am sure would love to utilize both of them effectively.
-
@MXNPD11 But you would need a server/router in a DC that handles outbound traffic as well?
-
@Cool_Corona In this aspect yes, that is required to make MPTCP work, in this implementation, this could be another pfsense box running this functionality if implemented. Wouldn't have to be a DC necessarily, just a place where the sum of bandwidth is greater than that of what is being aggregated, could be someones house, a VPS, a dedicated server, router, etc, so long as it can run pfsense.
