3 lan 3 internet connection to increase download speed !



  • Hi

    I`v got 3 internet connection ( 2 ADSLs 1 Wimax) I need download with all bandwidth quantity of them! how can i reach to this purpose ?

    Also I have not any problem to install additional hardware …





  • That's just balancing the bandwidth load. What he needs is bandwidth "aggregation"

    I doubt pfSense can do that. Though load balancing can "kinda" seem like aggregation while using torrents or downloads from multiple connections.



  • @asterix:

    That's just balancing the bandwidth load. What he needs is bandwidth "aggregation"

    I doubt pfSense can do that.

    Nothing can, short of ISP involvement to allow that (MLPPP, BGP).





  • @cmb:

    @asterix:

    That's just balancing the bandwidth load. What he needs is bandwidth "aggregation"

    I doubt pfSense can do that.

    Nothing can, short of ISP involvement to allow that (MLPPP, BGP).

    I was thinking about this earlier, what about MLPPP over VPN tunnels (one per interface) that all go to the same server?  It should be possible, right?  Technically that wouldn't require ISP involvement, though it would require you to have a server with at least 2x the sum total of your possible local bandwidth.



  • @jasonlitka:

    I was thinking about this earlier, what about MLPPP over VPN tunnels (one per interface) that all go to the same server?  It should be possible, right?  Technically that wouldn't require ISP involvement, though it would require you to have a server with at least 2x the sum total of your possible local bandwidth.

    That's the other possibility, at least one of the commercial vendors of bonding appliances does just that, they also charge an absurd monthly amount for it (more than all your WANs combined cost from your ISPs). Datacenter bandwidth is expensive at relatively small scale, so doing that isn't cheap. It also has the downside of adding latency, which will decrease performance for everything that's latency-sensitive.



  • @cmb:

    @jasonlitka:

    I was thinking about this earlier, what about MLPPP over VPN tunnels (one per interface) that all go to the same server?  It should be possible, right?  Technically that wouldn't require ISP involvement, though it would require you to have a server with at least 2x the sum total of your possible local bandwidth.

    That's the other possibility, at least one of the commercial vendors of bonding appliances does just that, they also charge an absurd monthly amount for it (more than all your WANs combined cost from your ISPs). Datacenter bandwidth is expensive at relatively small scale, so doing that isn't cheap. It also has the downside of adding latency, which will decrease performance for everything that's latency-sensitive.

    Yeah, but some of us work in commercial environments where there are plenty of underutilized, off-site, relatively-local servers that could be used.  I've got a DS3 & a DSL line as backup at work.  I'm in the process of ditching the DSL for a trial run of Comcast's Metro Ethernet service @ 20/20 (with a probable 50/50 upgrade a couple months after go-live unless the service stinks).  I'd love to be able to route some traffic over a bonded DS3+Ethernet connection.  Anything latency-sensitive (SIP, IAX, & remote SQL access) could go out directly over the DS3, anything else over the MLPPP to a hosted server.  An extra 4-5ms of latency is worth the potential bandwidth bonus to me.



  • @jasonlitka:

    An extra 4-5ms of latency is worth the potential bandwidth bonus to me.

    It's extremely rare that it would only be 4-5 ms, most people have higher latency than that to their first hop, but if that's the case for you it really doesn't matter whether you tunnel everything through or go straight out. Usually 40-60 ms is more like it unless it's on the same ISP and/or geographically very close with a good direct route that doesn't route you all over. Adding 4-5 ms won't make any real difference, 40-60 is a major difference.



  • @cmb:

    @jasonlitka:

    An extra 4-5ms of latency is worth the potential bandwidth bonus to me.

    It's extremely rare that it would only be 4-5 ms, most people have higher latency than that to their first hop, but if that's the case for you it really doesn't matter whether you tunnel everything through or go straight out. Usually 40-60 ms is more like it unless it's on the same ISP and/or geographically very close with a good direct route that doesn't route you all over. Adding 4-5 ms won't make any real difference, 40-60 is a major difference.

    Agreed, 40-60ms would stink, but I don't have that.  :D


Log in to reply