Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[gt94sss2]

I'm wondering if there are any other ISP's that would do FTTC bonding. Does the ISP have to do anything on their side? or is it all done at the EU side with the modem / router ?

Is it a complicated procedure to setup line bonding? I think there would be a big take up for line bonding, even ADSL style too.

Line bonding is available from several ISPs but it's targeted towards the business market.

You might be more interested in a load balancing router (software solutions also available)

Demand for bonding tends to be low for residential customers as it means paying for 2 or more broadband connections (inc. line rental) and I don't think it will take off unless Openreach decided bonding 2 lines from the DP was the favoured solution for providing higher speeds which isn't on the agenda any time soon.

[Weaver]

> thought XML was an API

No. It's like saying that a CSV file or a .DOC file is an API.

XML could be part of one.

[Dray]

> XML could be part of one.

Yeah. I know

[Weaver]

@Dray apol  

[Dray]

Nothing to apologise for
I just through it sounded an interesting thing which could be useful for you and others who are using bonding too
In fact I wouldn't be surprised if someone hadn't done it already.

[Weaver]

The killer is that you would need to inject the change of config into the FB, and making any change take effect currently involves a reboot. You can't just go around rebooting your firewall-router randomly, so some internal proper design mods would be needed to have a protocol for updating the firebrick upload traffic scheduling ratios dynamically. And this isn't something a third-party would be able to do, it's a feature request for RevK.

[Weaver]

We all have this problem with the Internet, we often don't know how much your correspondent knows, how much expertise she has. 

[Weaver]

> I'd be prepared to pay at least double.

You don't have to pay that much. With the traditional 'units-based' tariff, you pay a small amount per line and pay once only for the total amount of downstream traffic you need. This is the scheme I use, and it suits me very well. (It's the oldest tariff scheme.)

[aesmith]

This got me thinking, does PPPoE have flow control?  It seems to me that it must otherwise even in a single router/modem combination the router wouldn't know how to pace the outgoing packets.

[Weaver]

> As I joked the other day, imagine the speed of 2 G.fast connections. I'd be high on speed! 

You'd need one of the new (rumoured) forthcoming Firebrick's instead to be fast enough to route it all. 

My FB2500 is the slowest of the FB2000 range, but it would be quite happy routing a heap of low speed lines. (More than four lines means the performance starts to degrade slightly depending on how good the TCP stacks in the devices are). It can even handle more lines than you have room for on free physical ports, by using a VLAN switch.

[WWWombat]

This got me thinking, does PPPoE have flow control?  It seems to me that it must otherwise even in a single router/modem combination the router wouldn't know how to pace the outgoing packets.

It certainly isn't part of the standard PPPoE spec. I would expect flow control to appear in the standard place - at the TCP endpoints - and for intermediate routers and concentrators to cope with congestion in the standard way - by employing packet drops judiciously, using whatever queueing mechanism works best.

A quick google tells me that someone has written PPPoE extensions for flow control, but with a specific intention of use in some funny wireless setups. The RFC adds this note at the front:

The PPP Extensions Working Group (PPPEXT) has reservations about the
desirability of the feature described in this document.  In
particular, it solves a general problem at an inappropriate layer and
it may have unpredictable interactions with higher and lower level
protocols.

[aesmith]

It certainly isn't part of the standard PPPoE spec. I would expect flow control to appear in the standard place - at the TCP endpoints - and for intermediate routers and concentrators to cope with congestion in the standard way - by employing packet drops judiciously, using whatever queueing mechanism works best.

How would that work in a typical DSL scenario with PPPoE router connected by Ethernet (at least 10meg) to a DSL modem with let's say an 800K upload speed?   If the router just sends the packets as fast as they arrive and the modem drops them if the uplink is still busy, then that means no possibility of upstream QoS on the router.  Or to be more precise no possibility of prioritisation by the router.

[d2d4j]

Hi

It has always been my understanding that the Internet does not have QoS, so from your modem outbound, no QoS applies

Many thanks

John

[Dray]

I thought it was well known that if you turn off QOS on a Huawei HG612, your upstream sync increases by 1 Mbps.

[d2d4j]

Hi

Yes, it might increase in the short term, depending upon the traffic congestion, but if your congestion becomes high, you may slow down as there is no priory for traffic going out.

I just checked our hg612, and QoS is on, set to fair queue priority

Also, unless you have control over the DSL at both ends, your QoS is not fully working, only on the outgoing/incoming from your modem only

I hope that makes sense as the more I read my reply, the more I think I have not explained well sorry

Many thanks

John