I do some occasional tech work for a cable TV/Internet service provider. They have now offered me free services, including cable Internet. I currently have a DSL service through the telephone company and, for several reasons including the fact that it is really unlimited service with no cap and it comes with newsgroup access (neither of which the cable service has), I'm not really prepared to give that up.
However, since I can get a free cable Internet service too I would like to be able to put that to use.
Does anyone have any good ideas for what to do with an extra cable Internet service? Is there, say, a way to somehow "shotgun" two Internet services like you used to be able to do with dial-up modems to increase your transmission speed?
on 3-26-2008 12:27 PM Frank Cox spake the following:
I do some occasional tech work for a cable TV/Internet service provider. They have now offered me free services, including cable Internet. I currently have a DSL service through the telephone company and, for several reasons including the fact that it is really unlimited service with no cap and it comes with newsgroup access (neither of which the cable service has), I'm not really prepared to give that up.
However, since I can get a free cable Internet service too I would like to be able to put that to use.
Does anyone have any good ideas for what to do with an extra cable Internet service? Is there, say, a way to somehow "shotgun" two Internet services like you used to be able to do with dial-up modems to increase your transmission speed?
Bonding will only work if the connections terminate at the same place on BOTH ends. Since you are basically using 2 ISP's, that won't work. If you can find a load balancing router someplace, it can send different connections out different ports and keep track of what goes where. But the cost won't be cheap, and I don't know of any consumer level routers that do this. You might be able to get it working with Vyatta and a dedicated computer with multiple ethernet ports.
On Wed, 2008-03-26 at 13:27 -0600, Frank Cox wrote:
I do some occasional tech work for a cable TV/Internet service provider. They have now offered me free services, including cable Internet. I currently have a DSL service through the telephone company and, for several reasons including the fact that it is really unlimited service with no cap and it comes with newsgroup access (neither of which the cable service has), I'm not really prepared to give that up.
However, since I can get a free cable Internet service too I would like to be able to put that to use.
Does anyone have any good ideas for what to do with an extra cable Internet service? Is there, say, a way to somehow "shotgun" two Internet services like you used to be able to do with dial-up modems to increase your transmission speed?
The only way that you would be able to use them is a semi-load-balancing formation. What I mean by "semi" is that all traffic that exits one interface will always return to that one. Also, an entire transaction will go over only one of the lines, meaning you will only get the throughput of one line at a time.
The only way to "shotgun" (an ISP had to specifically support modem shotgunning in the olden days, BTW), i.e. do aggregate routing, is if you had a separate routed sub-net and ran BGP on the router connected to the two lines (The rest of the internet has to know that you have two lines and both are available to use, concurrently). Needless to say, this can be complicated, and is not considered a "consumer" setup (most providers will require it to be some sort of business type connection like, T and OC connections, which can be on the order of thousands a month, hundreds for a "fractional" T connection).
If the the first is acceptable, there are a number of docs like http://www.samag.com/documents/s=1824/sam0201h/0201h.htm that would help (I just did a google search for "balance two internet connections linux", first link) and guides that set up a redundant line also should help (it is actually what you are doing, but actively using the "redundant" line also). I hope that addresses what you are asking about.
--Tim ______________________________ < I'm definitely not in Omaha! > ------------------------------ \ \ \ \ /\ ( ) .( o ).
On Wed, 2008-03-26 at 13:08 -0700, Timothy Selivanow wrote:
Also, an entire transaction will go over only one of the lines, meaning you will only get the throughput of one line at a time.
I forgot to mention that independent applications (therefor many independent connections) won't use just one connection, i.e. both connections will be used from the holistic view of a workstation, but a single transaction (think doing a wget for a single file) will always be tied to a single line because of the way that TCP/IP works. Applications that make many connections (think BitTorrent) would theoretically use both.
--Tim __________________________________________________________ < Freedom of the press is for those who happen to own one. > ---------------------------------------------------------- \ \ \ \ /\ ( ) .( o ).
On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 13:08:58 -0700 Timothy Selivanow timothy.selivanow@virtualxistenz.com wrote:
The only way that you would be able to use them is a semi-load-balancing formation. What I mean by "semi" is that all traffic that exits one interface will always return to that one. Also, an entire transaction will go over only one of the lines, meaning you will only get the throughput of one line at a time.
That's pretty much what I had in mind.
I'm thinking that this sort of setup can't be too uncommon in "big" small business networks. An office with 600 networked computers won't be sucking on one measly DSL line, but they might be using ten at a total cost that's less than a high-capacity dedicated connection.
Frank Cox wrote:
On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 13:08:58 -0700 Timothy Selivanow timothy.selivanow@virtualxistenz.com wrote:
The only way that you would be able to use them is a semi-load-balancing formation. What I mean by "semi" is that all traffic that exits one interface will always return to that one. Also, an entire transaction will go over only one of the lines, meaning you will only get the throughput of one line at a time.
That's pretty much what I had in mind.
I'm thinking that this sort of setup can't be too uncommon in "big" small business networks. An office with 600 networked computers won't be sucking on one measly DSL line, but they might be using ten at a total cost that's less than a high-capacity dedicated connection.
Frank,
If you had 2 Internet firewalls each with their own default route, each doing NAT. On each of these firewalls you had a squid process running proxying requests and chaining requests from one squid to the other depending either on, request content, firewall load or Internet availability. Then you would have some resemblence of un-bonded load balanced Internet connections.
You could run a Xen box with 2 domUs each a firewall with squid and ran another squid process in dom0 that would chain to the best of the others on that box. You could even do some fancy routing with gated where you would have a primary default route and a backup default route advertised to dom0 and if the connectivity on any of the domUs goes down, have it stop advertising it's default route. Then have dom0 advertise itself as the default route on the local LAN.
-Ross
______________________________________________________________________ This e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy or printout thereof.
On Wed, 2008-03-26 at 16:35 -0400, Ross S. W. Walker wrote:
If you had 2 Internet firewalls each with their own default route, each doing NAT. On each of these firewalls you had a squid process running proxying requests and chaining requests from one squid to the other depending either on, request content, firewall load or Internet availability. Then you would have some resemblence of un-bonded load balanced Internet connections.
That would work for pure HTTP traffic, but I would think you'd want more than that and the kernel routing algo's should be more than sufficient (in comparison to a crazy squid setup ;)
--Tim ____________________________________________________________________________ < Murphy's Law is recursive. Washing your car to make it rain doesn't work. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- \ \ \ \ /\ ( ) .( o ).
On Mar 26, 2008, at 3:22 PM, Frank Cox wrote:
I'm thinking that this sort of setup can't be too uncommon in "big" small business networks. An office with 600 networked computers won't be sucking on one measly DSL line, but they might be using ten at a total cost that's less than a high-capacity dedicated connection.
It's not common at all in the US. By the time you get 10 business DSL lines, you can move into T-1 services and get much more upstream speed, 99.99% uptime, and MUCH faster repair times.
(Sorry I keep going OT)
--Chris
On Mar 26, 2008, at 3:08 PM, Timothy Selivanow wrote:
The only way to "shotgun" (an ISP had to specifically support modem shotgunning in the olden days, BTW), i.e. do aggregate routing, is if you had a separate routed sub-net and ran BGP on the router connected to the two lines (The rest of the internet has to know that you have two lines and both are available to use, concurrently). Needless to say, this can be complicated, and is not considered a "consumer" setup (most providers will require it to be some sort of business type connection like, T and OC connections, which can be on the order of thousands a month, hundreds for a "fractional" T connection).
If you are connecting to the same ISP with your lines, there's no need for BGP. (Yes, I know about the cases when the ISP could use BGP for various good reasons, but those are far outside the scope of "shotgun" type connections.)
The "shotgun" schemes and ISDN bonding are usually implemented with proprietary or standards based multilink PPP setups. There are also devices like inverse muxes that will allow you to bond T1s or E1s together for higher speeds on serial or Ethernet interfaces.
Most modern routers also support ECMP (Equal Cost Multi Path) which will spread your traffic over two or more links between the same pair of routers. The paths can be T or E carriers, Sonet, Ethernet, etc.
BGP comes into play when you need to make the rest of the Internet aware that you are connected (multihomed) to two or more transit carriers. Running BGP requires that you have reasonably serious routing hardware and reasonably large amounts of IP address space, and lots of clue.
This is way off topic at this point, and should probably be dropped.
--Chris
On Wednesday 26 March 2008, Frank Cox wrote:
I do some occasional tech work for a cable TV/Internet service provider. They have now offered me free services, including cable Internet. I currently have a DSL service through the telephone company and, for several reasons including the fact that it is really unlimited service with no cap and it comes with newsgroup access (neither of which the cable service has), I'm not really prepared to give that up.
However, since I can get a free cable Internet service too I would like to be able to put that to use.
Does anyone have any good ideas for what to do with an extra cable Internet service? Is there, say, a way to somehow "shotgun" two Internet services like you used to be able to do with dial-up modems to increase your transmission speed?
Getting better answers when posting on two lists? ;)
Anyway - I have a similar setup - Fios and cable modem. I use a Xincom router. They are reasonably priced (starting at around $150) and offer two wan uplinks. This way all workstations and servers on my lan side have a single default route and the xincom router distributes the load nicely. It does the normal things like nat, port forwarding, ... you're used to from other home routers. Also allows you to bind certain traffic to a specific side, i.e. all my ftp traffic is going over the cable modem side. If one wan link isn't available, the other link carries the full load. It won't speed up a single process but if you have that much bandwidth, you will anyway end up running a lot of things in parallel.
Peter.
Peter Arremann wrote:
On Wednesday 26 March 2008, Frank Cox wrote:
I do some occasional tech work for a cable TV/Internet service provider. They have now offered me free services, including cable Internet. I currently have a DSL service through the telephone company and, for several reasons including the fact that it is really unlimited service with no cap and it comes with newsgroup access (neither of which the cable service has), I'm not really prepared to give that up.
However, since I can get a free cable Internet service too I would like to be able to put that to use.
Does anyone have any good ideas for what to do with an extra cable Internet service? Is there, say, a way to somehow "shotgun" two Internet services like you used to be able to do with dial-up modems to increase your transmission speed?
Getting better answers when posting on two lists? ;)
Anyway - I have a similar setup - Fios and cable modem. I use a Xincom router. They are reasonably priced (starting at around $150) and offer two wan uplinks. This way all workstations and servers on my lan side have a single default route and the xincom router distributes the load nicely. It does the normal things like nat, port forwarding, ... you're used to from other home routers. Also allows you to bind certain traffic to a specific side, i.e. all my ftp traffic is going over the cable modem side. If one wan link isn't available, the other link carries the full load. It won't speed up a single process but if you have that much bandwidth, you will anyway end up running a lot of things in parallel.
I did not know such a nifty device existed.
Thanks for the tip!
-Ross
______________________________________________________________________ This e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy or printout thereof.
On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 16:48:33 -0400 Peter Arremann loony@loonybin.org wrote:
Getting better answers when posting on two lists? ;)
Yup. More answers from more people. Gotta be good!
Anyway - I have a similar setup - Fios and cable modem. I use a Xincom router.
Cool. I was just snooping around their website and it looks like that's just exactly what I want.
Thanks ever so much for the information!
On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 15:08:52 -0600 Frank Cox theatre@sasktel.net wrote:
On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 16:48:33 -0400 Peter Arremann loony@loonybin.org wrote:
Getting better answers when posting on two lists? ;)
Yup. More answers from more people. Gotta be good!
Anyway - I have a similar setup - Fios and cable modem. I use a Xincom router.
Cool. I was just snooping around their website and it looks like that's just exactly what I want.
I just ordered a Xincom XC-DPG502 from my friendly local computer dealer. It was about $100 cheaper than the Netgear.
A new toy....
Here's what I would get:
http://www.netgear.com/Products/VPNandSSL/WiredVPNFirewallRouters/FVS336G.as px
TWO wan interfaces in either Failover or Bonded, IPSEC and SSL VPN tunnels.....
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16833122213
I'm REALLY tempted, as I have a Linkproof Branch in my 2 locations to provide failover, and it was WAY more than this, and is a PAIN to configure.
Anyway, it's pricy for home, but based on what I've read, its a solid device..... Dennis
-----Original Message----- From: centos-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of Frank Cox Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 12:27 PM To: centos@centos.org Subject: [CentOS] Two Internet connections...
I do some occasional tech work for a cable TV/Internet service provider. They have now offered me free services, including cable Internet. I currently have a DSL service through the telephone company and, for several reasons including the fact that it is really unlimited service with no cap and it comes with newsgroup access (neither of which the cable service has), I'm not really prepared to give that up.
However, since I can get a free cable Internet service too I would like to be able to put that to use.
Does anyone have any good ideas for what to do with an extra cable Internet service? Is there, say, a way to somehow "shotgun" two Internet services like you used to be able to do with dial-up modems to increase your transmission speed?
-- MELVILLE THEATRE ~ Melville Sask ~ http://www.melvilletheatre.com _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 14:00:11 -0700 Dennis McLeod dmcleod@foranyauto.com wrote:
Here's what I would get:
http://www.netgear.com/Products/VPNandSSL/WiredVPNFirewallRouters/FVS336G.as px
That, and the xincom router mentioned above by Peter, look like exactly what I want.
Thanks!
-
Chris Boyd -
Dennis McLeod -
Frank Cox -
Peter Arremann -
Ross S. W. Walker -
Scott Silva -
Timothy Selivanow