[RndTbl] aggregating dsl lines

[John Lange]

Do you control the bare copper at each end? Adtran as a product called
"ActivReach" which delivers up to 100Mbit POE over CAT3 style wiring. Speed
varies depending on the number of pairs and the distance.

https://www.adtran.com/web/page/portal/Adtran/group/4396

"Data connectivity of 10/100 Mbps over one, two, or four pair of
voice-grade cabling (ActivReach mode)"

John


On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 11:59 AM, Brock Wolfe <obwolfe at shaw.ca> wrote:

> 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
>>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Roundtable mailing list
> Roundtable at muug.mb.ca
> http://www.muug.mb.ca/mailman/listinfo/roundtable
>



-- 
John Lange
www.johnlange.ca
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.muug.mb.ca/pipermail/roundtable/attachments/20150929/b73fe224/attachment.html>