<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_10_15_2220228</id>
	<title>Affordably Aggregating ISP Connections?</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1255604460000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes <i>"Has anyone setup a system to aggregate multiple ISP connections to form a high bandwidth site-to-site link?  <a href="http://rivus.sourceforge.net/load\%20sharing.html">Load Sharing SCTP</a> looked interesting, but it doesn't look like it has been widely adopted.  <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MLPPP#Multilink\_PPP">Multi-Link PPP</a> appears to be more widely supported for clients, but I can't find any good guides for setting up both sides of the connection for a site-to-site link. The hardware solutions I've found are expensive for a small business.  Does anyone have experience using hardware solutions from Mushroom Networks (<a href="http://www.mushroomnetworks.com/internal/VLLso2sowhitepaper.pdf">Virtual Leased Line, p2 of this document</a>), <a href="http://www.ecessa.com/">Ecessa</a> (site-to-Site Channel Bonding), or others?"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes " Has anyone setup a system to aggregate multiple ISP connections to form a high bandwidth site-to-site link ?
Load Sharing SCTP looked interesting , but it does n't look like it has been widely adopted .
Multi-Link PPP appears to be more widely supported for clients , but I ca n't find any good guides for setting up both sides of the connection for a site-to-site link .
The hardware solutions I 've found are expensive for a small business .
Does anyone have experience using hardware solutions from Mushroom Networks ( Virtual Leased Line , p2 of this document ) , Ecessa ( site-to-Site Channel Bonding ) , or others ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes "Has anyone setup a system to aggregate multiple ISP connections to form a high bandwidth site-to-site link?
Load Sharing SCTP looked interesting, but it doesn't look like it has been widely adopted.
Multi-Link PPP appears to be more widely supported for clients, but I can't find any good guides for setting up both sides of the connection for a site-to-site link.
The hardware solutions I've found are expensive for a small business.
Does anyone have experience using hardware solutions from Mushroom Networks (Virtual Leased Line, p2 of this document), Ecessa (site-to-Site Channel Bonding), or others?
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29764965</id>
	<title>Re:I would never socialize with a slashdot user.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255617000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; I would never socialize with a slashdot user.</p><p>Good move.  Having people talk about how hard it was to get the stench off after spending time with you would not help your job prospects (were you ever to graduate from Junior High).  Better that you associate with your own kind.  There's always work for unskilled labor.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; I would never socialize with a slashdot user.Good move .
Having people talk about how hard it was to get the stench off after spending time with you would not help your job prospects ( were you ever to graduate from Junior High ) .
Better that you associate with your own kind .
There 's always work for unskilled labor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; I would never socialize with a slashdot user.Good move.
Having people talk about how hard it was to get the stench off after spending time with you would not help your job prospects (were you ever to graduate from Junior High).
Better that you associate with your own kind.
There's always work for unskilled labor.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29763937</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29766769</id>
	<title>Mod Parent Up Non-Troll Please!</title>
	<author>billstewart</author>
	<datestamp>1255689000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, the author does rudely smack the original poster in the face, but as Captain Jack Sparrow said, he "may have deserved that."</p><p>The original poster didn't give us enough info.  Aggregation from multiple ISPs is possible, but it's a lot dodgier performance-wise than aggregating multiple connections from the same ISP.  On the other hand, your choices of possible solutions depend a lot on your problem - if you want to make a single fat TCP session go faster,  for instance a big file transfer, that's a lot harder than load-balancing a bunch of smaller sessions.  And of course most cheap consumer solutions are very asymmetric, so the upstream will be your limitation, and don't give you good Layer 2 feedback and probably aren't running TCP ECN either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , the author does rudely smack the original poster in the face , but as Captain Jack Sparrow said , he " may have deserved that .
" The original poster did n't give us enough info .
Aggregation from multiple ISPs is possible , but it 's a lot dodgier performance-wise than aggregating multiple connections from the same ISP .
On the other hand , your choices of possible solutions depend a lot on your problem - if you want to make a single fat TCP session go faster , for instance a big file transfer , that 's a lot harder than load-balancing a bunch of smaller sessions .
And of course most cheap consumer solutions are very asymmetric , so the upstream will be your limitation , and do n't give you good Layer 2 feedback and probably are n't running TCP ECN either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, the author does rudely smack the original poster in the face, but as Captain Jack Sparrow said, he "may have deserved that.
"The original poster didn't give us enough info.
Aggregation from multiple ISPs is possible, but it's a lot dodgier performance-wise than aggregating multiple connections from the same ISP.
On the other hand, your choices of possible solutions depend a lot on your problem - if you want to make a single fat TCP session go faster,  for instance a big file transfer, that's a lot harder than load-balancing a bunch of smaller sessions.
And of course most cheap consumer solutions are very asymmetric, so the upstream will be your limitation, and don't give you good Layer 2 feedback and probably aren't running TCP ECN either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29764041</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29771115</id>
	<title>how about</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255720320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>www.sharedband.com</p><p>works well here in uk, just ensure none of your isps are packet shaping or have any prioritisation of traffic</p><p>just a thought, my twopen'orth if you will</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>www.sharedband.comworks well here in uk , just ensure none of your isps are packet shaping or have any prioritisation of trafficjust a thought , my twopen'orth if you will</tokentext>
<sentencetext>www.sharedband.comworks well here in uk, just ensure none of your isps are packet shaping or have any prioritisation of trafficjust a thought, my twopen'orth if you will</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29772155</id>
	<title>PFsense</title>
	<author>psbrogna</author>
	<datestamp>1255725840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We switched from M0n0wall to PFsense (a fork of the BSD-based M0n0) because PFsense supported aggregation. Our experience has been very positive. We aggregate two biz class Comcast 50 Mb (down) x 10 Mb (up) (&amp; eventually will include a Verizon T-1) on an COTS PC stuffed with server grade NICs. The PC is driveless and boots off a USB. Rock Solid, out of pocket expense ~$400 for the Lenovo PC but you could probably find a much cheaper hardware platform.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We switched from M0n0wall to PFsense ( a fork of the BSD-based M0n0 ) because PFsense supported aggregation .
Our experience has been very positive .
We aggregate two biz class Comcast 50 Mb ( down ) x 10 Mb ( up ) ( &amp; eventually will include a Verizon T-1 ) on an COTS PC stuffed with server grade NICs .
The PC is driveless and boots off a USB .
Rock Solid , out of pocket expense ~ $ 400 for the Lenovo PC but you could probably find a much cheaper hardware platform .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We switched from M0n0wall to PFsense (a fork of the BSD-based M0n0) because PFsense supported aggregation.
Our experience has been very positive.
We aggregate two biz class Comcast 50 Mb (down) x 10 Mb (up) (&amp; eventually will include a Verizon T-1) on an COTS PC stuffed with server grade NICs.
The PC is driveless and boots off a USB.
Rock Solid, out of pocket expense ~$400 for the Lenovo PC but you could probably find a much cheaper hardware platform.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29764323</id>
	<title>Multi WAN router</title>
	<author>Grant The Great</author>
	<datestamp>1255611060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just get one of the commercial multi wan routers and jam a bunch of connections into them. It's not true link aggregation but it's as affordable as it can get. It won't become one giant pipe, instead the connections from machines behind the router will get load balanced out. In order to get true link aggregation, well, it's horribly expensive and I'm almost positive that it can't be done with multiple ISPs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just get one of the commercial multi wan routers and jam a bunch of connections into them .
It 's not true link aggregation but it 's as affordable as it can get .
It wo n't become one giant pipe , instead the connections from machines behind the router will get load balanced out .
In order to get true link aggregation , well , it 's horribly expensive and I 'm almost positive that it ca n't be done with multiple ISPs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just get one of the commercial multi wan routers and jam a bunch of connections into them.
It's not true link aggregation but it's as affordable as it can get.
It won't become one giant pipe, instead the connections from machines behind the router will get load balanced out.
In order to get true link aggregation, well, it's horribly expensive and I'm almost positive that it can't be done with multiple ISPs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29765309</id>
	<title>Time share vs. cost</title>
	<author>toddler420</author>
	<datestamp>1255620960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As many posters have pointed out, there are about a gajillion ways to do this (I'm a big fan of GRE, Quagga, and some judicious OSPF metrics<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>If you're talking about remote offices with workers who aren't IT-aware past "Oooooh, email" and you start adding layers of complexity to their Internet connection(s), you necessarily increase the risks of network downtime due to configuration errors, busted hardware, code bugs, etc...  many times things you can't fix remotely.  Some assessment of your target customer's tech-level for dealing with those issues should go in to the design decision.  E.g. - implementing a Linux-based firewall on repurposed commodity hardware in an office without full time IT staff might make for a nightmare if the hard drive died; you likely would end up driving to that office to fix it, hiring a local "consultant" to assist if you can't drive there reasonably, or re-tasking someone's time in the office for your own nefarious IT purposes (instead of them being out there selling your employer's bread and butter).</p><p>If you're a centralized network manager at the company HQ, then the conversation that starts with "Powercycle the blue-and-white box and tell me what the LED's do" is a lot easier to deal with than "What does the screen say?  Oh, well a kernel panic means something really bad happened..."  You can mitigate those issues, but you'll inevitably end up on the phone someday with an office worker whose "Internet ain't workin".  Sometimes it's easier to spend the money up front for a piece of dedicated hardware, rather than in the back-end on support costs (opportunity or actual).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As many posters have pointed out , there are about a gajillion ways to do this ( I 'm a big fan of GRE , Quagga , and some judicious OSPF metrics : ) If you 're talking about remote offices with workers who are n't IT-aware past " Oooooh , email " and you start adding layers of complexity to their Internet connection ( s ) , you necessarily increase the risks of network downtime due to configuration errors , busted hardware , code bugs , etc... many times things you ca n't fix remotely .
Some assessment of your target customer 's tech-level for dealing with those issues should go in to the design decision .
E.g. - implementing a Linux-based firewall on repurposed commodity hardware in an office without full time IT staff might make for a nightmare if the hard drive died ; you likely would end up driving to that office to fix it , hiring a local " consultant " to assist if you ca n't drive there reasonably , or re-tasking someone 's time in the office for your own nefarious IT purposes ( instead of them being out there selling your employer 's bread and butter ) .If you 're a centralized network manager at the company HQ , then the conversation that starts with " Powercycle the blue-and-white box and tell me what the LED 's do " is a lot easier to deal with than " What does the screen say ?
Oh , well a kernel panic means something really bad happened... " You can mitigate those issues , but you 'll inevitably end up on the phone someday with an office worker whose " Internet ai n't workin " .
Sometimes it 's easier to spend the money up front for a piece of dedicated hardware , rather than in the back-end on support costs ( opportunity or actual ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As many posters have pointed out, there are about a gajillion ways to do this (I'm a big fan of GRE, Quagga, and some judicious OSPF metrics :)If you're talking about remote offices with workers who aren't IT-aware past "Oooooh, email" and you start adding layers of complexity to their Internet connection(s), you necessarily increase the risks of network downtime due to configuration errors, busted hardware, code bugs, etc...  many times things you can't fix remotely.
Some assessment of your target customer's tech-level for dealing with those issues should go in to the design decision.
E.g. - implementing a Linux-based firewall on repurposed commodity hardware in an office without full time IT staff might make for a nightmare if the hard drive died; you likely would end up driving to that office to fix it, hiring a local "consultant" to assist if you can't drive there reasonably, or re-tasking someone's time in the office for your own nefarious IT purposes (instead of them being out there selling your employer's bread and butter).If you're a centralized network manager at the company HQ, then the conversation that starts with "Powercycle the blue-and-white box and tell me what the LED's do" is a lot easier to deal with than "What does the screen say?
Oh, well a kernel panic means something really bad happened..."  You can mitigate those issues, but you'll inevitably end up on the phone someday with an office worker whose "Internet ain't workin".
Sometimes it's easier to spend the money up front for a piece of dedicated hardware, rather than in the back-end on support costs (opportunity or actual).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29769285</id>
	<title>Packet reordering / VPN Bonding</title>
	<author>scamp</author>
	<datestamp>1255711260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Obviously direct aggregation isn't possible, as each line will have a different source IP. What works is load balancing, but load balancing sucks. If you do per-TCP-connection load balancing on multiple lines, lots of sites will give you problems, as multiple requests for the same session are coming from different IPs. Online banking doesn't like this, ads-supported sites often don't like this (as the ad was loaded from a different IP). So this leaves you with per source-host load-balancing, and this only makes sense if there are lots of people who are two share the lines.</p><p>Doing real aggregation (bonding) requires a remote endpoint obviously, located in a datacenter somewhere for example. Problem: There is no standard protocol that works for a combination of different lines, Multilink-PPP will only work for several identical lines from the same ISP (ideally using the same clock source at the DSLAM etc). Why is that? That's because if you use multiple lines, they will have different latencies / round trip times. And if you bundle those, this means that TCP packets will overtake each other in-flight. So in the end whoever is receiving the re-assembled stream will get it out of order. And TCP can not differ between reordered and lost packet - if an unexpected (too high sequence number) packet is received, it is dropped. And this can not be solved by buffering at the router/PPP-device, because this buffering would interference with TCP windowing. In the end most of your aggregated bandwidth will therefore be eaten by retransmissions.</p><p>So, people may tell you to try this and that, but in the end everyone who has ever REALLY tried it himself will tell you: Forget about it, the performance will always be really bad (unless you have multiple identical lines).</p><p>There is a small german startup I work for which has solved the problem by creating a new bundled VPN protocol running on the way between the router in your office and the one in the datacenter, basically running a man-in-the-middle attack on TCP to get rid of the packet reordering in-flight. See <a href="http://www.viprinet.com/" title="viprinet.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.viprinet.com/</a> [viprinet.com] for the available products and background info on how it works. Pricing starts at ~1000 USD, but obviously you'll need two boxes - probably not what you'd call "affordable". And sadly we do not yet have distributors inside the USA.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Obviously direct aggregation is n't possible , as each line will have a different source IP .
What works is load balancing , but load balancing sucks .
If you do per-TCP-connection load balancing on multiple lines , lots of sites will give you problems , as multiple requests for the same session are coming from different IPs .
Online banking does n't like this , ads-supported sites often do n't like this ( as the ad was loaded from a different IP ) .
So this leaves you with per source-host load-balancing , and this only makes sense if there are lots of people who are two share the lines.Doing real aggregation ( bonding ) requires a remote endpoint obviously , located in a datacenter somewhere for example .
Problem : There is no standard protocol that works for a combination of different lines , Multilink-PPP will only work for several identical lines from the same ISP ( ideally using the same clock source at the DSLAM etc ) .
Why is that ?
That 's because if you use multiple lines , they will have different latencies / round trip times .
And if you bundle those , this means that TCP packets will overtake each other in-flight .
So in the end whoever is receiving the re-assembled stream will get it out of order .
And TCP can not differ between reordered and lost packet - if an unexpected ( too high sequence number ) packet is received , it is dropped .
And this can not be solved by buffering at the router/PPP-device , because this buffering would interference with TCP windowing .
In the end most of your aggregated bandwidth will therefore be eaten by retransmissions.So , people may tell you to try this and that , but in the end everyone who has ever REALLY tried it himself will tell you : Forget about it , the performance will always be really bad ( unless you have multiple identical lines ) .There is a small german startup I work for which has solved the problem by creating a new bundled VPN protocol running on the way between the router in your office and the one in the datacenter , basically running a man-in-the-middle attack on TCP to get rid of the packet reordering in-flight .
See http : //www.viprinet.com/ [ viprinet.com ] for the available products and background info on how it works .
Pricing starts at ~ 1000 USD , but obviously you 'll need two boxes - probably not what you 'd call " affordable " .
And sadly we do not yet have distributors inside the USA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obviously direct aggregation isn't possible, as each line will have a different source IP.
What works is load balancing, but load balancing sucks.
If you do per-TCP-connection load balancing on multiple lines, lots of sites will give you problems, as multiple requests for the same session are coming from different IPs.
Online banking doesn't like this, ads-supported sites often don't like this (as the ad was loaded from a different IP).
So this leaves you with per source-host load-balancing, and this only makes sense if there are lots of people who are two share the lines.Doing real aggregation (bonding) requires a remote endpoint obviously, located in a datacenter somewhere for example.
Problem: There is no standard protocol that works for a combination of different lines, Multilink-PPP will only work for several identical lines from the same ISP (ideally using the same clock source at the DSLAM etc).
Why is that?
That's because if you use multiple lines, they will have different latencies / round trip times.
And if you bundle those, this means that TCP packets will overtake each other in-flight.
So in the end whoever is receiving the re-assembled stream will get it out of order.
And TCP can not differ between reordered and lost packet - if an unexpected (too high sequence number) packet is received, it is dropped.
And this can not be solved by buffering at the router/PPP-device, because this buffering would interference with TCP windowing.
In the end most of your aggregated bandwidth will therefore be eaten by retransmissions.So, people may tell you to try this and that, but in the end everyone who has ever REALLY tried it himself will tell you: Forget about it, the performance will always be really bad (unless you have multiple identical lines).There is a small german startup I work for which has solved the problem by creating a new bundled VPN protocol running on the way between the router in your office and the one in the datacenter, basically running a man-in-the-middle attack on TCP to get rid of the packet reordering in-flight.
See http://www.viprinet.com/ [viprinet.com] for the available products and background info on how it works.
Pricing starts at ~1000 USD, but obviously you'll need two boxes - probably not what you'd call "affordable".
And sadly we do not yet have distributors inside the USA.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29770351</id>
	<title>BGP</title>
	<author>ACMENEWSLLC</author>
	<datestamp>1255716480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We use BGP to combine multiple circuits into a single bound circuit.  We have outbound and inbound traffic working over this.</p><p>We have the routers set to not cache routing.  But you can't expect to turn two 1.5Mb/s T1's into the same thing as true 3Mb/s connection.  It is close, but a single video stream is only going to traverse one of the two T1's.   A P2P download will use all 3Mb/s.</p><p>If all you really want is to speed up outbound connections (not inbound to a webserver for example) you can use something like a ZyXel 100 or 50.   They have load balancing built in;<br><a href="http://www.zyxel.co.uk/web/product\_family\_detail.php?PC1indexflag=20040908175941&amp;CategoryGroupNo=PDCA2008004" title="zyxel.co.uk">http://www.zyxel.co.uk/web/product\_family\_detail.php?PC1indexflag=20040908175941&amp;CategoryGroupNo=PDCA2008004</a> [zyxel.co.uk]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We use BGP to combine multiple circuits into a single bound circuit .
We have outbound and inbound traffic working over this.We have the routers set to not cache routing .
But you ca n't expect to turn two 1.5Mb/s T1 's into the same thing as true 3Mb/s connection .
It is close , but a single video stream is only going to traverse one of the two T1 's .
A P2P download will use all 3Mb/s.If all you really want is to speed up outbound connections ( not inbound to a webserver for example ) you can use something like a ZyXel 100 or 50 .
They have load balancing built in ; http : //www.zyxel.co.uk/web/product \ _family \ _detail.php ? PC1indexflag = 20040908175941&amp;CategoryGroupNo = PDCA2008004 [ zyxel.co.uk ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We use BGP to combine multiple circuits into a single bound circuit.
We have outbound and inbound traffic working over this.We have the routers set to not cache routing.
But you can't expect to turn two 1.5Mb/s T1's into the same thing as true 3Mb/s connection.
It is close, but a single video stream is only going to traverse one of the two T1's.
A P2P download will use all 3Mb/s.If all you really want is to speed up outbound connections (not inbound to a webserver for example) you can use something like a ZyXel 100 or 50.
They have load balancing built in;http://www.zyxel.co.uk/web/product\_family\_detail.php?PC1indexflag=20040908175941&amp;CategoryGroupNo=PDCA2008004 [zyxel.co.uk]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29763937</id>
	<title>I would never socialize with a slashdot user.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255608540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would never socialize with a slashdot user.<br>No. Just no. lol. I would be mortified if someone saw me with a bunch of neckbeards waddling around with their cell phones strapped to the outside of their waists. Half of you have been in junior college for almost a decade. Blech.<br>My time is precious, and I can afford to be choosy when it comes to people I associate with. I wouldn't even look at you if you tried to get my attention.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would never socialize with a slashdot user.No .
Just no .
lol. I would be mortified if someone saw me with a bunch of neckbeards waddling around with their cell phones strapped to the outside of their waists .
Half of you have been in junior college for almost a decade .
Blech.My time is precious , and I can afford to be choosy when it comes to people I associate with .
I would n't even look at you if you tried to get my attention .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would never socialize with a slashdot user.No.
Just no.
lol. I would be mortified if someone saw me with a bunch of neckbeards waddling around with their cell phones strapped to the outside of their waists.
Half of you have been in junior college for almost a decade.
Blech.My time is precious, and I can afford to be choosy when it comes to people I associate with.
I wouldn't even look at you if you tried to get my attention.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29764463</id>
	<title>Give us more information</title>
	<author>jbroom</author>
	<datestamp>1255612320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What exactly are you trying to achieve?<br>Some scenarios:<br>A) remote to central with 2 ISP's at remote with "cheap regular" DSL type connection going to central where there is a "big fat pipe" (multihomed?)<br>A.1) a one of for a single remote<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.2) something repeatable for multiple remotes<br>B) remote to central with 2 ISP's as A) and with (same?) 2 ISP's at central (also B.1 &amp; B.2) as above).</p><p>Do we have any fixed public IP addresses anywhere in the equation (or is this out of budget too)?<br>In all cases in which direction is the data flowing mainly?<br>Also, what is the purpose mainly here? Getting higher speed? Higher redundancy? Less latency (hah!) ?<br>&gt; The hardware solutions I've found are expensive for a small business<br>Can you define expensive, what type of price is out of it (both for hardware and for links)?</p><p>I would GUESS that the end result needed is to connect LAN-1 to LAN-2 , so it doesn't HAVE to "look" as a single channel for the routers involved, just that the paths<br>aggregate and are redundant... But a bit more information would be appreciated!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What exactly are you trying to achieve ? Some scenarios : A ) remote to central with 2 ISP 's at remote with " cheap regular " DSL type connection going to central where there is a " big fat pipe " ( multihomed ?
) A.1 ) a one of for a single remote .2 ) something repeatable for multiple remotesB ) remote to central with 2 ISP 's as A ) and with ( same ?
) 2 ISP 's at central ( also B.1 &amp; B.2 ) as above ) .Do we have any fixed public IP addresses anywhere in the equation ( or is this out of budget too ) ? In all cases in which direction is the data flowing mainly ? Also , what is the purpose mainly here ?
Getting higher speed ?
Higher redundancy ?
Less latency ( hah !
) ? &gt; The hardware solutions I 've found are expensive for a small businessCan you define expensive , what type of price is out of it ( both for hardware and for links ) ? I would GUESS that the end result needed is to connect LAN-1 to LAN-2 , so it does n't HAVE to " look " as a single channel for the routers involved , just that the pathsaggregate and are redundant... But a bit more information would be appreciated !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What exactly are you trying to achieve?Some scenarios:A) remote to central with 2 ISP's at remote with "cheap regular" DSL type connection going to central where there is a "big fat pipe" (multihomed?
)A.1) a one of for a single remote .2) something repeatable for multiple remotesB) remote to central with 2 ISP's as A) and with (same?
) 2 ISP's at central (also B.1 &amp; B.2) as above).Do we have any fixed public IP addresses anywhere in the equation (or is this out of budget too)?In all cases in which direction is the data flowing mainly?Also, what is the purpose mainly here?
Getting higher speed?
Higher redundancy?
Less latency (hah!
) ?&gt; The hardware solutions I've found are expensive for a small businessCan you define expensive, what type of price is out of it (both for hardware and for links)?I would GUESS that the end result needed is to connect LAN-1 to LAN-2 , so it doesn't HAVE to "look" as a single channel for the routers involved, just that the pathsaggregate and are redundant... But a bit more information would be appreciated!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29766829</id>
	<title>Re:What are you really trying to do?</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1255689960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>But that's the grandparent's point.  What does he actually want from this setup?  There are a lot of factors that will affect the best solution.  Does he want:
<ul>
<li>Individual connections to be faster?</li>
<li>Total throughput to be more?</li>
<li>Overall reliability to be better?</li>
<li>Transparent fail-over if one connection goes down?</li>
</ul><p>
If he wants the last one, does he want:
</p><ul>
<li>Existing connections to continue working?</li>
<li>New incoming connections to keep working?</li>
<li>New outgoing connections to keep working?</li>
</ul><p>
Some of these are trivial, some require a little bit of client-side configuration, some require additional support from the ISP.  Without knowing what he actually wants to achieve, it's impossible to make a recommendation.  You can do all of these things relatively easily with a stock OpenBSD install on your router, but exactly which ones you want depends a lot more on the requirements.  For somethings, you want to run a VPN between the two sites with packets sent over some of the link with the most bandwidth.  For others, you could get away with just a couple of routing rules.  If you want more than just the two sites and you want existing connections to work then you need the ISP to support updating the routing tables when their link to you goes down.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But that 's the grandparent 's point .
What does he actually want from this setup ?
There are a lot of factors that will affect the best solution .
Does he want : Individual connections to be faster ?
Total throughput to be more ?
Overall reliability to be better ?
Transparent fail-over if one connection goes down ?
If he wants the last one , does he want : Existing connections to continue working ?
New incoming connections to keep working ?
New outgoing connections to keep working ?
Some of these are trivial , some require a little bit of client-side configuration , some require additional support from the ISP .
Without knowing what he actually wants to achieve , it 's impossible to make a recommendation .
You can do all of these things relatively easily with a stock OpenBSD install on your router , but exactly which ones you want depends a lot more on the requirements .
For somethings , you want to run a VPN between the two sites with packets sent over some of the link with the most bandwidth .
For others , you could get away with just a couple of routing rules .
If you want more than just the two sites and you want existing connections to work then you need the ISP to support updating the routing tables when their link to you goes down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But that's the grandparent's point.
What does he actually want from this setup?
There are a lot of factors that will affect the best solution.
Does he want:

Individual connections to be faster?
Total throughput to be more?
Overall reliability to be better?
Transparent fail-over if one connection goes down?
If he wants the last one, does he want:

Existing connections to continue working?
New incoming connections to keep working?
New outgoing connections to keep working?
Some of these are trivial, some require a little bit of client-side configuration, some require additional support from the ISP.
Without knowing what he actually wants to achieve, it's impossible to make a recommendation.
You can do all of these things relatively easily with a stock OpenBSD install on your router, but exactly which ones you want depends a lot more on the requirements.
For somethings, you want to run a VPN between the two sites with packets sent over some of the link with the most bandwidth.
For others, you could get away with just a couple of routing rules.
If you want more than just the two sites and you want existing connections to work then you need the ISP to support updating the routing tables when their link to you goes down.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29765359</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29801501</id>
	<title>Re:Pering</title>
	<author>dgatwood</author>
	<datestamp>1255953600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>A friend of mine was pissed that he was throttled back to less than 100K down and 0K up 85 - 95\% of the time.</p></div></blockquote><p>No kilobytes per second?  So how do you make an HTTP request at all?  That's upstream bandwidth.  If you're truly not getting any outbound traffic, this likely indicates that there is something electrically wrong, not that they are shaping traffic that hard.  Either that or you have a clogged pipe from your ISP up to the outside world.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A friend of mine was pissed that he was throttled back to less than 100K down and 0K up 85 - 95 \ % of the time.No kilobytes per second ?
So how do you make an HTTP request at all ?
That 's upstream bandwidth .
If you 're truly not getting any outbound traffic , this likely indicates that there is something electrically wrong , not that they are shaping traffic that hard .
Either that or you have a clogged pipe from your ISP up to the outside world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A friend of mine was pissed that he was throttled back to less than 100K down and 0K up 85 - 95\% of the time.No kilobytes per second?
So how do you make an HTTP request at all?
That's upstream bandwidth.
If you're truly not getting any outbound traffic, this likely indicates that there is something electrically wrong, not that they are shaping traffic that hard.
Either that or you have a clogged pipe from your ISP up to the outside world.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29766339</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29765171</id>
	<title>OpenVPN + Linux Bonding</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255619460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Use OpenVPN with one separate connection per ISP you have. Use Linux's ethernet bonding on the new virtual ethernet devices created by OpenVPN. You'll probably want one of the round-robin methods that doesn't require any special switches. And you are done.</p><p>Whatever you do, DO NOT use multi-link PPP. You will essentially be using TCP over TCP without any smart software to handle the complications with two layers trying the same resending techniques every time a packet is lost. The connection will stall every time you lose a packet. It is a horrible experience. I learned this the hard way before using OpenVPN.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Use OpenVPN with one separate connection per ISP you have .
Use Linux 's ethernet bonding on the new virtual ethernet devices created by OpenVPN .
You 'll probably want one of the round-robin methods that does n't require any special switches .
And you are done.Whatever you do , DO NOT use multi-link PPP .
You will essentially be using TCP over TCP without any smart software to handle the complications with two layers trying the same resending techniques every time a packet is lost .
The connection will stall every time you lose a packet .
It is a horrible experience .
I learned this the hard way before using OpenVPN .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Use OpenVPN with one separate connection per ISP you have.
Use Linux's ethernet bonding on the new virtual ethernet devices created by OpenVPN.
You'll probably want one of the round-robin methods that doesn't require any special switches.
And you are done.Whatever you do, DO NOT use multi-link PPP.
You will essentially be using TCP over TCP without any smart software to handle the complications with two layers trying the same resending techniques every time a packet is lost.
The connection will stall every time you lose a packet.
It is a horrible experience.
I learned this the hard way before using OpenVPN.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29764453</id>
	<title>Ask Willie Nelson, he uses Mushroom Portabella</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255612200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wired has an article on Willie Nelson's setup in his tour bus running,

<a href="http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/10/willie-nelson-broadban/" title="wired.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/10/willie-nelson-broadban/</a> [wired.com]
"Willie Nelson has tossed the satellite dish off the back of his corn-powered tour bus in favor of a little box that fuses wireless data cards from a variety of networks into a single connection."[Mushroom Networks PortaBella 141]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wired has an article on Willie Nelson 's setup in his tour bus running , http : //www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/10/willie-nelson-broadban/ [ wired.com ] " Willie Nelson has tossed the satellite dish off the back of his corn-powered tour bus in favor of a little box that fuses wireless data cards from a variety of networks into a single connection .
" [ Mushroom Networks PortaBella 141 ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wired has an article on Willie Nelson's setup in his tour bus running,

http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/10/willie-nelson-broadban/ [wired.com]
"Willie Nelson has tossed the satellite dish off the back of his corn-powered tour bus in favor of a little box that fuses wireless data cards from a variety of networks into a single connection.
"[Mushroom Networks PortaBella 141]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29765641</id>
	<title>Re:Need More Infos</title>
	<author>Leto-II</author>
	<datestamp>1255625340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Sounds like you're trying to take a DSL, cable, and possibly a T1 or other technology and trunk them for combined throughput. That isn't possible because you'd have packets in the same stream taking different routes and TCP/IP doesn't allow for that, that I know of. I don't think any technology allows for that. For example an 8mbit DSL, 6mbit cable, and a T1 can't be combined to make a 15.5mbit connection. I suppose the same would be true if you were wirelessly connected to multiple networks.</p></div><p>I think you need to review your basic networking knowledge.  We use packet switching, not circuit switching.  Different packets within a single TCP/IP connection can most definitely take different routes to their destination.  It might not be the optimal situation, but it is built to work that way.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like you 're trying to take a DSL , cable , and possibly a T1 or other technology and trunk them for combined throughput .
That is n't possible because you 'd have packets in the same stream taking different routes and TCP/IP does n't allow for that , that I know of .
I do n't think any technology allows for that .
For example an 8mbit DSL , 6mbit cable , and a T1 ca n't be combined to make a 15.5mbit connection .
I suppose the same would be true if you were wirelessly connected to multiple networks.I think you need to review your basic networking knowledge .
We use packet switching , not circuit switching .
Different packets within a single TCP/IP connection can most definitely take different routes to their destination .
It might not be the optimal situation , but it is built to work that way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like you're trying to take a DSL, cable, and possibly a T1 or other technology and trunk them for combined throughput.
That isn't possible because you'd have packets in the same stream taking different routes and TCP/IP doesn't allow for that, that I know of.
I don't think any technology allows for that.
For example an 8mbit DSL, 6mbit cable, and a T1 can't be combined to make a 15.5mbit connection.
I suppose the same would be true if you were wirelessly connected to multiple networks.I think you need to review your basic networking knowledge.
We use packet switching, not circuit switching.
Different packets within a single TCP/IP connection can most definitely take different routes to their destination.
It might not be the optimal situation, but it is built to work that way.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29764507</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29765123</id>
	<title>Pseudo-code recipe</title>
	<author>injustus</author>
	<datestamp>1255618680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lets suppose you have networks A and B. Given N cheap broadband connections on each side, lets call them A1, A2<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... A(N) and B1, B2<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... B(N)</p><p>At host A, for each A(N), B(N) pair, you set:<br>* a route for B(N)\_IP via A(N)\_Gateway<br>* a VPN link with source address A(N)\_IP and destination B(N)\_IP<br>* a static route for private networks behind B via each A(N)-&gt;B(N) virtual interface</p><p>Repeat for host B and each B(N), A(N) pair.</p><p>Problem: if each link has very distinct latencies, you will end up with package streams arriving at the other side heavily out of order. Tune your TCP stack accordingly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lets suppose you have networks A and B. Given N cheap broadband connections on each side , lets call them A1 , A2 ... A ( N ) and B1 , B2 ... B ( N ) At host A , for each A ( N ) , B ( N ) pair , you set : * a route for B ( N ) \ _IP via A ( N ) \ _Gateway * a VPN link with source address A ( N ) \ _IP and destination B ( N ) \ _IP * a static route for private networks behind B via each A ( N ) - &gt; B ( N ) virtual interfaceRepeat for host B and each B ( N ) , A ( N ) pair.Problem : if each link has very distinct latencies , you will end up with package streams arriving at the other side heavily out of order .
Tune your TCP stack accordingly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lets suppose you have networks A and B. Given N cheap broadband connections on each side, lets call them A1, A2 ... A(N) and B1, B2 ... B(N)At host A, for each A(N), B(N) pair, you set:* a route for B(N)\_IP via A(N)\_Gateway* a VPN link with source address A(N)\_IP and destination B(N)\_IP* a static route for private networks behind B via each A(N)-&gt;B(N) virtual interfaceRepeat for host B and each B(N), A(N) pair.Problem: if each link has very distinct latencies, you will end up with package streams arriving at the other side heavily out of order.
Tune your TCP stack accordingly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29765001</id>
	<title>Re:tomato</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255617300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>I would suggest OpenBSD + PF and just load balance the connections using PF. Takes all of 10 lines of code to get it up and going and is well documented.</i> </p><p>

Where is this documented?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would suggest OpenBSD + PF and just load balance the connections using PF .
Takes all of 10 lines of code to get it up and going and is well documented .
Where is this documented ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I would suggest OpenBSD + PF and just load balance the connections using PF.
Takes all of 10 lines of code to get it up and going and is well documented.
Where is this documented?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29764305</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29763969</id>
	<title>What are you really trying to do?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255608720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What you have presented us with here is a "B C" problem. You want to achieve C, so you ask us how to do B. Unfortunately, you never specify what A is, so the best we can do is give you some pointers for B which are probably going to be irrelevant and useless to what you are really trying to achieve.</p><p>Most of the comments will probably be about trying to figure out what your A problem is. To that end, why don't you just get a faster line in the first place and forget about this line aggregation stuff you're asking about?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What you have presented us with here is a " B C " problem .
You want to achieve C , so you ask us how to do B. Unfortunately , you never specify what A is , so the best we can do is give you some pointers for B which are probably going to be irrelevant and useless to what you are really trying to achieve.Most of the comments will probably be about trying to figure out what your A problem is .
To that end , why do n't you just get a faster line in the first place and forget about this line aggregation stuff you 're asking about ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What you have presented us with here is a "B C" problem.
You want to achieve C, so you ask us how to do B. Unfortunately, you never specify what A is, so the best we can do is give you some pointers for B which are probably going to be irrelevant and useless to what you are really trying to achieve.Most of the comments will probably be about trying to figure out what your A problem is.
To that end, why don't you just get a faster line in the first place and forget about this line aggregation stuff you're asking about?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29765857</id>
	<title>Re:What are you really trying to do?</title>
	<author>jawahar</author>
	<datestamp>1255628580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wondering if it is possible to aggregate 2 power lines for e.g. 10 Volts + 20 Volts = 30 Volts</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wondering if it is possible to aggregate 2 power lines for e.g .
10 Volts + 20 Volts = 30 Volts</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wondering if it is possible to aggregate 2 power lines for e.g.
10 Volts + 20 Volts = 30 Volts</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29763969</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29765657</id>
	<title>Advanced Routing Howto</title>
	<author>flyingfsck</author>
	<datestamp>1255625640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Advanced Routing Howto on tldp.org - nuf sed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Advanced Routing Howto on tldp.org - nuf sed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Advanced Routing Howto on tldp.org - nuf sed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29763851</id>
	<title>Peering</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255608120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The hardware solutions I've found are expensive for a small business.</p></div><p>And leasing the line is too if you want multiple ISP's on it. One is easy, after that it gets hard.</p><p>If you want something fail-proof, just go for co-location in an established datacenter with many peers.</p><p>The more interesting question here is that if someone has done *peering* outside of major datacenters? It's of course costly, but it's something the submitter is looking for.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The hardware solutions I 've found are expensive for a small business.And leasing the line is too if you want multiple ISP 's on it .
One is easy , after that it gets hard.If you want something fail-proof , just go for co-location in an established datacenter with many peers.The more interesting question here is that if someone has done * peering * outside of major datacenters ?
It 's of course costly , but it 's something the submitter is looking for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The hardware solutions I've found are expensive for a small business.And leasing the line is too if you want multiple ISP's on it.
One is easy, after that it gets hard.If you want something fail-proof, just go for co-location in an established datacenter with many peers.The more interesting question here is that if someone has done *peering* outside of major datacenters?
It's of course costly, but it's something the submitter is looking for.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29764035</id>
	<title>pfSense</title>
	<author>adairw</author>
	<datestamp>1255609020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Unless you can get your ISP to bond several connections together about the best you can do is load balancing across multiple connections.

I use pfsense (http://www.pfsense.com) as my router/firewall VPN solution that's free, you only supply the hardware to run it on.
with it you can load balance and fail over to 2 or more connections automatically. Specif connections can even be setup to have certain traffic routed over them while all other traffic gets load balanced round robin style.
there are of course other free *nix distros out there that will let you do the same type of stuff however I and many others have found pfSense to be far batter than most.

AW</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless you can get your ISP to bond several connections together about the best you can do is load balancing across multiple connections .
I use pfsense ( http : //www.pfsense.com ) as my router/firewall VPN solution that 's free , you only supply the hardware to run it on .
with it you can load balance and fail over to 2 or more connections automatically .
Specif connections can even be setup to have certain traffic routed over them while all other traffic gets load balanced round robin style .
there are of course other free * nix distros out there that will let you do the same type of stuff however I and many others have found pfSense to be far batter than most .
AW</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless you can get your ISP to bond several connections together about the best you can do is load balancing across multiple connections.
I use pfsense (http://www.pfsense.com) as my router/firewall VPN solution that's free, you only supply the hardware to run it on.
with it you can load balance and fail over to 2 or more connections automatically.
Specif connections can even be setup to have certain traffic routed over them while all other traffic gets load balanced round robin style.
there are of course other free *nix distros out there that will let you do the same type of stuff however I and many others have found pfSense to be far batter than most.
AW</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29764895</id>
	<title>Policy-based routing</title>
	<author>jmilne</author>
	<datestamp>1255616400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you're trying to combine different types of access (leased-line, cable, DSL), I think you're out of luck with trying to aggregate everything into a single "super circuit". However, you can certainly utilize all of those individual circuits. Look up policy-based routing. Most every platform out there should support it through some method. Set it up so that email goes over the DSL, your database queries goes over the cable connection, and your VoIP goes over the leased-line. You'll probably need to tweak it a bit at first until you get a nice blend of traffic, and you'll want to make sure to set up some default routes to handle things if you have an outage on one of your circuits, but you'll see better performance on individual circuits and use all of them. If you've got the same type of access, but through different providers, you'll probably have to do the same. If you've got the same type of access through the same provider, then MLPPP or GRE should work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 're trying to combine different types of access ( leased-line , cable , DSL ) , I think you 're out of luck with trying to aggregate everything into a single " super circuit " .
However , you can certainly utilize all of those individual circuits .
Look up policy-based routing .
Most every platform out there should support it through some method .
Set it up so that email goes over the DSL , your database queries goes over the cable connection , and your VoIP goes over the leased-line .
You 'll probably need to tweak it a bit at first until you get a nice blend of traffic , and you 'll want to make sure to set up some default routes to handle things if you have an outage on one of your circuits , but you 'll see better performance on individual circuits and use all of them .
If you 've got the same type of access , but through different providers , you 'll probably have to do the same .
If you 've got the same type of access through the same provider , then MLPPP or GRE should work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you're trying to combine different types of access (leased-line, cable, DSL), I think you're out of luck with trying to aggregate everything into a single "super circuit".
However, you can certainly utilize all of those individual circuits.
Look up policy-based routing.
Most every platform out there should support it through some method.
Set it up so that email goes over the DSL, your database queries goes over the cable connection, and your VoIP goes over the leased-line.
You'll probably need to tweak it a bit at first until you get a nice blend of traffic, and you'll want to make sure to set up some default routes to handle things if you have an outage on one of your circuits, but you'll see better performance on individual circuits and use all of them.
If you've got the same type of access, but through different providers, you'll probably have to do the same.
If you've got the same type of access through the same provider, then MLPPP or GRE should work.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29767919</id>
	<title>Linux bonded connections</title>
	<author>cenc</author>
	<datestamp>1255703940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I really don't see why all the head scratching here is about. A proper bit of research on Google would answer this. This is a fairly trivial task with most any linux distro on both ends (Tomato or similar flashed routers would likly be able to do it also).   I guess the limit on this is how many connections can you plug in (your hardware or kernel handle), and how many will your isp sell you.</p><p>I have to use multiple ISP where I live because none are reliable for 100\% up time, and none will sell much more than 4 mb-6mb per connection but they will allow me to stack dsl connections as much as I want.  SSH is my choice for VPN solution, but I suspect any other VPN will do the trick with some tweaking of the iptables and such.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I really do n't see why all the head scratching here is about .
A proper bit of research on Google would answer this .
This is a fairly trivial task with most any linux distro on both ends ( Tomato or similar flashed routers would likly be able to do it also ) .
I guess the limit on this is how many connections can you plug in ( your hardware or kernel handle ) , and how many will your isp sell you.I have to use multiple ISP where I live because none are reliable for 100 \ % up time , and none will sell much more than 4 mb-6mb per connection but they will allow me to stack dsl connections as much as I want .
SSH is my choice for VPN solution , but I suspect any other VPN will do the trick with some tweaking of the iptables and such .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really don't see why all the head scratching here is about.
A proper bit of research on Google would answer this.
This is a fairly trivial task with most any linux distro on both ends (Tomato or similar flashed routers would likly be able to do it also).
I guess the limit on this is how many connections can you plug in (your hardware or kernel handle), and how many will your isp sell you.I have to use multiple ISP where I live because none are reliable for 100\% up time, and none will sell much more than 4 mb-6mb per connection but they will allow me to stack dsl connections as much as I want.
SSH is my choice for VPN solution, but I suspect any other VPN will do the trick with some tweaking of the iptables and such.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29766359</id>
	<title>Opensolaris Crossbow</title>
	<author>anilg</author>
	<datestamp>1255725060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Link aggregation made easy (\_easy\_ as in ZFS making filesystems easy)</p><p><a href="http://opensolaris.org/os/project/crossbow/" title="opensolaris.org">http://opensolaris.org/os/project/crossbow/</a> [opensolaris.org]<br>Any opensolaris distribution with the latest builds should have this (including Nexenta).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Link aggregation made easy ( \ _easy \ _ as in ZFS making filesystems easy ) http : //opensolaris.org/os/project/crossbow/ [ opensolaris.org ] Any opensolaris distribution with the latest builds should have this ( including Nexenta ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Link aggregation made easy (\_easy\_ as in ZFS making filesystems easy)http://opensolaris.org/os/project/crossbow/ [opensolaris.org]Any opensolaris distribution with the latest builds should have this (including Nexenta).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29764521</id>
	<title>Peplink multi-WAN router</title>
	<author>michaelchan</author>
	<datestamp>1255612800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Peplink multi-WAN router supports forming multiple site-2-site VPN connections over multiple WAN connection.  Failover and load balancing VPN traffic is supported.  Routing between sites is automatically configured.  256 bit AES encrypted.  Supports static IP, DHCP and PPPoE WAN types.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Peplink multi-WAN router supports forming multiple site-2-site VPN connections over multiple WAN connection .
Failover and load balancing VPN traffic is supported .
Routing between sites is automatically configured .
256 bit AES encrypted .
Supports static IP , DHCP and PPPoE WAN types .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Peplink multi-WAN router supports forming multiple site-2-site VPN connections over multiple WAN connection.
Failover and load balancing VPN traffic is supported.
Routing between sites is automatically configured.
256 bit AES encrypted.
Supports static IP, DHCP and PPPoE WAN types.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29764915</id>
	<title>Re:I would never socialize with a slashdot user.</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1255616580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...their cell phones strapped to the outside of their waists...</p><p>You strap yours to the inside of your waist?  I'm trying not to visualize that...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; ...their cell phones strapped to the outside of their waists...You strap yours to the inside of your waist ?
I 'm trying not to visualize that.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; ...their cell phones strapped to the outside of their waists...You strap yours to the inside of your waist?
I'm trying not to visualize that...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29763937</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29764101</id>
	<title>Linux Based Solutions</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255609380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Other options in the Linux world are Zero Shell and Vyatta.  You can aggregate Internet connections and also have failover capabilities.</p><p>HMH</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Other options in the Linux world are Zero Shell and Vyatta .
You can aggregate Internet connections and also have failover capabilities.HMH</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Other options in the Linux world are Zero Shell and Vyatta.
You can aggregate Internet connections and also have failover capabilities.HMH</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29767421</id>
	<title>I've done this.</title>
	<author>tzanger</author>
	<datestamp>1255699800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> Although not with any of the solutions others have offered.</p><p>Two DSL links from different providers (would have worked with cable or satellite or GPRS/HSPA) -- the router uses iproute2 to set up multiple default gateways and use them in a round-robin fashion. Now I was going one step further; they wanted a single IP, so I extruded a multihomed IP from a colocated server and routed traffic for it over these multiple links (over L2TP tunnels, IIRC).</p><p>It worked really well, and you could aggregate more bandwidth simply by adding more connections. The colocated server had next to zero load. As links fell and came back, the ip-up scripts automatically adjusted and the overall bandwidth grew and shrank as they should.</p><p>If I were to do it again, I'd be a little smarter on the choosing of the link to use for a particular packet; i.e. have a management daemon that kept track of the average/burst traffic through each link and select the "best one" based on available bandwidth at that instant and expected return packet size.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Although not with any of the solutions others have offered.Two DSL links from different providers ( would have worked with cable or satellite or GPRS/HSPA ) -- the router uses iproute2 to set up multiple default gateways and use them in a round-robin fashion .
Now I was going one step further ; they wanted a single IP , so I extruded a multihomed IP from a colocated server and routed traffic for it over these multiple links ( over L2TP tunnels , IIRC ) .It worked really well , and you could aggregate more bandwidth simply by adding more connections .
The colocated server had next to zero load .
As links fell and came back , the ip-up scripts automatically adjusted and the overall bandwidth grew and shrank as they should.If I were to do it again , I 'd be a little smarter on the choosing of the link to use for a particular packet ; i.e .
have a management daemon that kept track of the average/burst traffic through each link and select the " best one " based on available bandwidth at that instant and expected return packet size .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Although not with any of the solutions others have offered.Two DSL links from different providers (would have worked with cable or satellite or GPRS/HSPA) -- the router uses iproute2 to set up multiple default gateways and use them in a round-robin fashion.
Now I was going one step further; they wanted a single IP, so I extruded a multihomed IP from a colocated server and routed traffic for it over these multiple links (over L2TP tunnels, IIRC).It worked really well, and you could aggregate more bandwidth simply by adding more connections.
The colocated server had next to zero load.
As links fell and came back, the ip-up scripts automatically adjusted and the overall bandwidth grew and shrank as they should.If I were to do it again, I'd be a little smarter on the choosing of the link to use for a particular packet; i.e.
have a management daemon that kept track of the average/burst traffic through each link and select the "best one" based on available bandwidth at that instant and expected return packet size.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29766799</id>
	<title>Broadbond!</title>
	<author>Will Sowerbutts</author>
	<datestamp>1255689420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have written a solution which does exactly this -- <a href="http://broadbond.org/" title="broadbond.org" rel="nofollow">http://broadbond.org/</a> [broadbond.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have written a solution which does exactly this -- http : //broadbond.org/ [ broadbond.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have written a solution which does exactly this -- http://broadbond.org/ [broadbond.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29764277</id>
	<title>www.sharedband.com</title>
	<author>newmember</author>
	<datestamp>1255610760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>www.sharedband.com <br>
Bonds both Up and Down stream.<br>
Layer 3 so you don't have to bother your ISP.<br>
I have seen people bond FiOSS with DSL and Cable modems.<br>
<br>
Sold directly or through your ISP if they offer the service.<br>
<br>
Reliable and very cost effective.<br>
Keeps your ISP honest.<br>


Cheers</htmltext>
<tokenext>www.sharedband.com Bonds both Up and Down stream .
Layer 3 so you do n't have to bother your ISP .
I have seen people bond FiOSS with DSL and Cable modems .
Sold directly or through your ISP if they offer the service .
Reliable and very cost effective .
Keeps your ISP honest .
Cheers</tokentext>
<sentencetext>www.sharedband.com 
Bonds both Up and Down stream.
Layer 3 so you don't have to bother your ISP.
I have seen people bond FiOSS with DSL and Cable modems.
Sold directly or through your ISP if they offer the service.
Reliable and very cost effective.
Keeps your ISP honest.
Cheers</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29764067</id>
	<title>Re:Peering</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255609200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>put the two circuits on the other side of two cable/dsl/... modems.<br>on your workstations -<br>two default gateways,<br>nat both of them<br>you are good to go</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>put the two circuits on the other side of two cable/dsl/... modems.on your workstations -two default gateways,nat both of themyou are good to go</tokentext>
<sentencetext>put the two circuits on the other side of two cable/dsl/... modems.on your workstations -two default gateways,nat both of themyou are good to go</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29763851</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29776811</id>
	<title>Re:pfSense</title>
	<author>atamido</author>
	<datestamp>1255786680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I also use pfSense, and while I don't have multiple WAN connections, I am satisfied with it's other features (such as traffic shaping).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I also use pfSense , and while I do n't have multiple WAN connections , I am satisfied with it 's other features ( such as traffic shaping ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I also use pfSense, and while I don't have multiple WAN connections, I am satisfied with it's other features (such as traffic shaping).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29764035</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29766519</id>
	<title>Re:Bonded VPNs</title>
	<author>Slashcrap</author>
	<datestamp>1255684920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I have bonded 2 IPSec VPNs running over 2 ISP's to create a bigger (and cheaper) site-to-site link on the cheap.</p><p><a href="http://www.zeroshell.net/eng/faq/vpn/" title="zeroshell.net" rel="nofollow">http://www.zeroshell.net/eng/faq/vpn/</a> [zeroshell.net]</p><p>Read Point 5 in the link</p></div><p>Not using that product you didn't. It uses OpenVPN for site to site connections, not IPSEC.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have bonded 2 IPSec VPNs running over 2 ISP 's to create a bigger ( and cheaper ) site-to-site link on the cheap.http : //www.zeroshell.net/eng/faq/vpn/ [ zeroshell.net ] Read Point 5 in the linkNot using that product you did n't .
It uses OpenVPN for site to site connections , not IPSEC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have bonded 2 IPSec VPNs running over 2 ISP's to create a bigger (and cheaper) site-to-site link on the cheap.http://www.zeroshell.net/eng/faq/vpn/ [zeroshell.net]Read Point 5 in the linkNot using that product you didn't.
It uses OpenVPN for site to site connections, not IPSEC.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29763929</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29764507</id>
	<title>Need More Infos</title>
	<author>LoudMusic</author>
	<datestamp>1255612740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sounds like you're trying to take a DSL, cable, and possibly a T1 or other technology and trunk them for combined throughput. That isn't possible because you'd have packets in the same stream taking different routes and TCP/IP doesn't allow for that, that I know of. I don't think any technology allows for that. For example an 8mbit DSL, 6mbit cable, and a T1 can't be combined to make a 15.5mbit connection. I suppose the same would be true if you were wirelessly connected to multiple networks.</p><p>You can, however, use all three gateways independently with a variety of load balancing software so that when a new request is made from any host it is routed through the gateway with both the quickest response time and the most bandwidth available. I'll let you look that up on your own - there are lots of free options. The problem is that the load balancer needs to be smart enough to not fuck up your active sessions. If you were communicating with a host via one route, went idle for a bit but didn't end the session, then sent more data via another route the host on the other end will most likely (if written correctly) not accept your new packets.</p><p>The way we handled it at "The Geek House" with three internet gateways was to just permanently assign gateways based on the role of the host, and made sure not too many were on the slower gateways. It's not perfect, and certainly could have been geekier, but it worked and we didn't have to worry about shit breaking in the middle of a frag fest. And if one gateway was down the hosts configured with that gateway just had to change their gateway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like you 're trying to take a DSL , cable , and possibly a T1 or other technology and trunk them for combined throughput .
That is n't possible because you 'd have packets in the same stream taking different routes and TCP/IP does n't allow for that , that I know of .
I do n't think any technology allows for that .
For example an 8mbit DSL , 6mbit cable , and a T1 ca n't be combined to make a 15.5mbit connection .
I suppose the same would be true if you were wirelessly connected to multiple networks.You can , however , use all three gateways independently with a variety of load balancing software so that when a new request is made from any host it is routed through the gateway with both the quickest response time and the most bandwidth available .
I 'll let you look that up on your own - there are lots of free options .
The problem is that the load balancer needs to be smart enough to not fuck up your active sessions .
If you were communicating with a host via one route , went idle for a bit but did n't end the session , then sent more data via another route the host on the other end will most likely ( if written correctly ) not accept your new packets.The way we handled it at " The Geek House " with three internet gateways was to just permanently assign gateways based on the role of the host , and made sure not too many were on the slower gateways .
It 's not perfect , and certainly could have been geekier , but it worked and we did n't have to worry about shit breaking in the middle of a frag fest .
And if one gateway was down the hosts configured with that gateway just had to change their gateway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like you're trying to take a DSL, cable, and possibly a T1 or other technology and trunk them for combined throughput.
That isn't possible because you'd have packets in the same stream taking different routes and TCP/IP doesn't allow for that, that I know of.
I don't think any technology allows for that.
For example an 8mbit DSL, 6mbit cable, and a T1 can't be combined to make a 15.5mbit connection.
I suppose the same would be true if you were wirelessly connected to multiple networks.You can, however, use all three gateways independently with a variety of load balancing software so that when a new request is made from any host it is routed through the gateway with both the quickest response time and the most bandwidth available.
I'll let you look that up on your own - there are lots of free options.
The problem is that the load balancer needs to be smart enough to not fuck up your active sessions.
If you were communicating with a host via one route, went idle for a bit but didn't end the session, then sent more data via another route the host on the other end will most likely (if written correctly) not accept your new packets.The way we handled it at "The Geek House" with three internet gateways was to just permanently assign gateways based on the role of the host, and made sure not too many were on the slower gateways.
It's not perfect, and certainly could have been geekier, but it worked and we didn't have to worry about shit breaking in the middle of a frag fest.
And if one gateway was down the hosts configured with that gateway just had to change their gateway.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29766909</id>
	<title>Re:Talari Networks?</title>
	<author>cerberusss</author>
	<datestamp>1255691460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Have you looked at what Talari Networks (<a href="http://talari.com/" title="talari.com">http://talari.com/</a> [talari.com]) is doing? I'm pretty sure their products do EXACTLY what you're talking about. Might be pricy for you, but it should do the trick.</p></div><p>I was wondering what pricey is, and it turns out that the smallest appliance costs $4K, with the biggest one costing up to $30K.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you looked at what Talari Networks ( http : //talari.com/ [ talari.com ] ) is doing ?
I 'm pretty sure their products do EXACTLY what you 're talking about .
Might be pricy for you , but it should do the trick.I was wondering what pricey is , and it turns out that the smallest appliance costs $ 4K , with the biggest one costing up to $ 30K .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you looked at what Talari Networks (http://talari.com/ [talari.com]) is doing?
I'm pretty sure their products do EXACTLY what you're talking about.
Might be pricy for you, but it should do the trick.I was wondering what pricey is, and it turns out that the smallest appliance costs $4K, with the biggest one costing up to $30K.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29764123</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29766381</id>
	<title>Re:HTTP proxy doing range requests</title>
	<author>icebraining</author>
	<datestamp>1255725360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How do you think download accelerators work? They use the <a href="http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec14.html#sec14.35" title="w3.org">Range</a> [w3.org] header to tell the server they only want a chunk of the file. Then, they ask for multiple chunks, each one using a different TCP connection.</p><p>In conclusion, what you're saying can already be done using HTTP 1.1, as long as you make a download manager that uses each connection in a round-robin fashion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How do you think download accelerators work ?
They use the Range [ w3.org ] header to tell the server they only want a chunk of the file .
Then , they ask for multiple chunks , each one using a different TCP connection.In conclusion , what you 're saying can already be done using HTTP 1.1 , as long as you make a download manager that uses each connection in a round-robin fashion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How do you think download accelerators work?
They use the Range [w3.org] header to tell the server they only want a chunk of the file.
Then, they ask for multiple chunks, each one using a different TCP connection.In conclusion, what you're saying can already be done using HTTP 1.1, as long as you make a download manager that uses each connection in a round-robin fashion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29764151</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29777665</id>
	<title>will do</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255795320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>we have such a thing running:<br>- 3 DSL-Links<br>- running 3 openvpn instances<br>- bonding this 3 tun devices into one bond0<br>on the other site we have a rootserver somwhere in a datacenter.<br>so we can use true speed together,.<br>and its better then loadbalancing, where you can use only one linespped per session.<br>with this setup you are able to run the accumulated speed of this 3 lines per session.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>we have such a thing running : - 3 DSL-Links- running 3 openvpn instances- bonding this 3 tun devices into one bond0on the other site we have a rootserver somwhere in a datacenter.so we can use true speed together,.and its better then loadbalancing , where you can use only one linespped per session.with this setup you are able to run the accumulated speed of this 3 lines per session .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>we have such a thing running:- 3 DSL-Links- running 3 openvpn instances- bonding this 3 tun devices into one bond0on the other site we have a rootserver somwhere in a datacenter.so we can use true speed together,.and its better then loadbalancing, where you can use only one linespped per session.with this setup you are able to run the accumulated speed of this 3 lines per session.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29765691</id>
	<title>Why do you need an ISP for a point-point?</title>
	<author>fluffy99</author>
	<datestamp>1255626420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>An Internet Service Provider (ISP) isn't involved  in a point-point.  It's just a service provider at that point.  Multiple links from the telco for redundancy is silly as the vast majority of problems will take down both links (cut fiber, local CO issues, etc).  If you're talking mixing Telco, Satellite and Cable for redundancy as someone else mentioned, then I'd guess you are are talking about an ISP and running VPN then?  In that case there are options such as mlppp, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>An Internet Service Provider ( ISP ) is n't involved in a point-point .
It 's just a service provider at that point .
Multiple links from the telco for redundancy is silly as the vast majority of problems will take down both links ( cut fiber , local CO issues , etc ) .
If you 're talking mixing Telco , Satellite and Cable for redundancy as someone else mentioned , then I 'd guess you are are talking about an ISP and running VPN then ?
In that case there are options such as mlppp , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An Internet Service Provider (ISP) isn't involved  in a point-point.
It's just a service provider at that point.
Multiple links from the telco for redundancy is silly as the vast majority of problems will take down both links (cut fiber, local CO issues, etc).
If you're talking mixing Telco, Satellite and Cable for redundancy as someone else mentioned, then I'd guess you are are talking about an ISP and running VPN then?
In that case there are options such as mlppp, etc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29764033</id>
	<title>tomato</title>
	<author>angelbunny</author>
	<datestamp>1255609020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The cheapest way to do this is use the mlppp version of tomato on a wrt type router. You can check it out here: <a href="http://fixppp.org/" title="fixppp.org" rel="nofollow">http://fixppp.org/</a> [fixppp.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The cheapest way to do this is use the mlppp version of tomato on a wrt type router .
You can check it out here : http : //fixppp.org/ [ fixppp.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The cheapest way to do this is use the mlppp version of tomato on a wrt type router.
You can check it out here: http://fixppp.org/ [fixppp.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29764123</id>
	<title>Talari Networks?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255609500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Have you looked at what Talari Networks (<a href="http://talari.com/" title="talari.com" rel="nofollow">http://talari.com/</a> [talari.com]) is doing? I'm pretty sure their products do EXACTLY what you're talking about. Might be pricy for you, but it should do the trick.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you looked at what Talari Networks ( http : //talari.com/ [ talari.com ] ) is doing ?
I 'm pretty sure their products do EXACTLY what you 're talking about .
Might be pricy for you , but it should do the trick .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you looked at what Talari Networks (http://talari.com/ [talari.com]) is doing?
I'm pretty sure their products do EXACTLY what you're talking about.
Might be pricy for you, but it should do the trick.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29871803</id>
	<title>WZZ</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256568900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Owen <a href="http://www.aion4gold.com/" title="aion4gold.com" rel="nofollow">aion gold</a> [aion4gold.com]<br><a href="http://www.metin2sale.com/" title="metin2sale.com" rel="nofollow">metin2 yang</a> [metin2sale.com] will be<br><a href="http://www.itemchannel.com/" title="itemchannel.com" rel="nofollow">wow gold cheap</a> [itemchannel.com]<br><a href="http://www.aionshopping.com/" title="aionshopping.com" rel="nofollow">aion gold</a> [aionshopping.com] possible<br><a href="http://www.vipwarhammergold.com/" title="vipwarhammergold.com" rel="nofollow">world of warcraft gold</a> [vipwarhammergold.com] to<br><a href="http://www.aion4gold.com/" title="aion4gold.com" rel="nofollow">aion4gold</a> [aion4gold.com] return to<br><a href="http://www.aion4gold.com/" title="aion4gold.com" rel="nofollow">cheap aion gold</a> [aion4gold.com] the national<br>
&nbsp; team <a href="http://www.cheapaion.com/" title="cheapaion.com" rel="nofollow">Aion Kina</a> [cheapaion.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Owen aion gold [ aion4gold.com ] metin2 yang [ metin2sale.com ] will bewow gold cheap [ itemchannel.com ] aion gold [ aionshopping.com ] possibleworld of warcraft gold [ vipwarhammergold.com ] toaion4gold [ aion4gold.com ] return tocheap aion gold [ aion4gold.com ] the national   team Aion Kina [ cheapaion.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Owen aion gold [aion4gold.com]metin2 yang [metin2sale.com] will bewow gold cheap [itemchannel.com]aion gold [aionshopping.com] possibleworld of warcraft gold [vipwarhammergold.com] toaion4gold [aion4gold.com] return tocheap aion gold [aion4gold.com] the national
  team Aion Kina [cheapaion.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29766017</id>
	<title>Re:Only Half a dozen BSD and Linux Appliances...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255631400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ask Slashdot isn't about getting a google search answer. It's about drawing on the opinions and experiences from a group of people who have walked the path before you. People who can tell you about expensive options that don't work and recommend ones that do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ask Slashdot is n't about getting a google search answer .
It 's about drawing on the opinions and experiences from a group of people who have walked the path before you .
People who can tell you about expensive options that do n't work and recommend ones that do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ask Slashdot isn't about getting a google search answer.
It's about drawing on the opinions and experiences from a group of people who have walked the path before you.
People who can tell you about expensive options that don't work and recommend ones that do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29764667</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29767505</id>
	<title>Do it at layer 2</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255700700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most people are talking about methods at layer 3 with a routed network in between you.  I feel as though you really want multiple circuits in a bonded solution at layer two with multiple point to point links.  If you make the connections point to point between the location, you can easily use per packet or per flow equal cost load balancing across the links.</p><p>If you want to use DS1s or DS3s for this, Overture Networks makes devices that bond the circuits together and bridges Ethernet right over top of them:</p><p>http://www.overturenetworks.com</p><p>In particular you'd want the ISG140 or ISG 180 (for up to 4 or 8 T1s) or the ISG 45 for multiple DS3s.  I use their products extensively in a service provider environment.  Very stable and extensible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most people are talking about methods at layer 3 with a routed network in between you .
I feel as though you really want multiple circuits in a bonded solution at layer two with multiple point to point links .
If you make the connections point to point between the location , you can easily use per packet or per flow equal cost load balancing across the links.If you want to use DS1s or DS3s for this , Overture Networks makes devices that bond the circuits together and bridges Ethernet right over top of them : http : //www.overturenetworks.comIn particular you 'd want the ISG140 or ISG 180 ( for up to 4 or 8 T1s ) or the ISG 45 for multiple DS3s .
I use their products extensively in a service provider environment .
Very stable and extensible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most people are talking about methods at layer 3 with a routed network in between you.
I feel as though you really want multiple circuits in a bonded solution at layer two with multiple point to point links.
If you make the connections point to point between the location, you can easily use per packet or per flow equal cost load balancing across the links.If you want to use DS1s or DS3s for this, Overture Networks makes devices that bond the circuits together and bridges Ethernet right over top of them:http://www.overturenetworks.comIn particular you'd want the ISG140 or ISG 180 (for up to 4 or 8 T1s) or the ISG 45 for multiple DS3s.
I use their products extensively in a service provider environment.
Very stable and extensible.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29765959</id>
	<title>what's your definition of "expensive"?</title>
	<author>VolciMaster</author>
	<datestamp>1255630440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't work for Barracuda, but their link balancer (http://www.barracudanetworks.com/ns/products/link\_overview.php) is ~$3700 US for the 3 connection device, with full support.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't work for Barracuda , but their link balancer ( http : //www.barracudanetworks.com/ns/products/link \ _overview.php ) is ~ $ 3700 US for the 3 connection device , with full support .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't work for Barracuda, but their link balancer (http://www.barracudanetworks.com/ns/products/link\_overview.php) is ~$3700 US for the 3 connection device, with full support.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29768429</id>
	<title>Re:Peering</title>
	<author>guruevi</author>
	<datestamp>1255707000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's fairly simple. Get yourself an IP range, get some connections and do some BGP over it. Sure it's relatively expensive but if you need that type of connectivity on location, then you should be able to pay for it. There are many small data centers out there that have this setup. In open source you can find a solution called Zebra but many ISP's give/lease/sell you the hardware for it from Cisco or Juniper.</p><p>For other setups refer to this: <a href="http://linux-ip.net/html/adv-multi-internet.html" title="linux-ip.net">http://linux-ip.net/html/adv-multi-internet.html</a> [linux-ip.net] - if you need site-to-site just set up two VPN's over the two connections and route through them. It's all very simple if you break it down.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's fairly simple .
Get yourself an IP range , get some connections and do some BGP over it .
Sure it 's relatively expensive but if you need that type of connectivity on location , then you should be able to pay for it .
There are many small data centers out there that have this setup .
In open source you can find a solution called Zebra but many ISP 's give/lease/sell you the hardware for it from Cisco or Juniper.For other setups refer to this : http : //linux-ip.net/html/adv-multi-internet.html [ linux-ip.net ] - if you need site-to-site just set up two VPN 's over the two connections and route through them .
It 's all very simple if you break it down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's fairly simple.
Get yourself an IP range, get some connections and do some BGP over it.
Sure it's relatively expensive but if you need that type of connectivity on location, then you should be able to pay for it.
There are many small data centers out there that have this setup.
In open source you can find a solution called Zebra but many ISP's give/lease/sell you the hardware for it from Cisco or Juniper.For other setups refer to this: http://linux-ip.net/html/adv-multi-internet.html [linux-ip.net] - if you need site-to-site just set up two VPN's over the two connections and route through them.
It's all very simple if you break it down.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29763851</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29764099</id>
	<title>failsafe.ca</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255609380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Failsafe (http://failsafe.ca) My own tunneling system, which operates at the IP layer (and so doesn't care what the underlying links are), will provide both aggregation and redundancy using multiple links between sites.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Failsafe ( http : //failsafe.ca ) My own tunneling system , which operates at the IP layer ( and so does n't care what the underlying links are ) , will provide both aggregation and redundancy using multiple links between sites .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Failsafe (http://failsafe.ca) My own tunneling system, which operates at the IP layer (and so doesn't care what the underlying links are), will provide both aggregation and redundancy using multiple links between sites.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29764867</id>
	<title>Mac OS X?</title>
	<author>appleguru</author>
	<datestamp>1255616160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Admittedly, I have no idea if it works, nor do I have any idea how it decides to load balance between the connections.. But I ran across the feature the other day and it looked pretty cool.</p><p>In Mac OS X you can create a new "Aggregate" network device from any other devices and, in theory, do exactly what your describing. Again, I just ran across this the other day in Network Preferences and have no idea if/how it works, but it might be worth a shot (especially since it seems a lot easier to configure than a roll your own router with dd-wrt or tomato, though those likely offer more fine-tuned configuration).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Admittedly , I have no idea if it works , nor do I have any idea how it decides to load balance between the connections.. But I ran across the feature the other day and it looked pretty cool.In Mac OS X you can create a new " Aggregate " network device from any other devices and , in theory , do exactly what your describing .
Again , I just ran across this the other day in Network Preferences and have no idea if/how it works , but it might be worth a shot ( especially since it seems a lot easier to configure than a roll your own router with dd-wrt or tomato , though those likely offer more fine-tuned configuration ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Admittedly, I have no idea if it works, nor do I have any idea how it decides to load balance between the connections.. But I ran across the feature the other day and it looked pretty cool.In Mac OS X you can create a new "Aggregate" network device from any other devices and, in theory, do exactly what your describing.
Again, I just ran across this the other day in Network Preferences and have no idea if/how it works, but it might be worth a shot (especially since it seems a lot easier to configure than a roll your own router with dd-wrt or tomato, though those likely offer more fine-tuned configuration).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29771493</id>
	<title>Multipath TCP</title>
	<author>larse</author>
	<datestamp>1255722240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You may be interested in the <a href="http://www.ietf.org/dyn/wg/charter/mptcp-charter" title="ietf.org" rel="nofollow">Multipath TCP working group</a> [ietf.org] we've just chartered in the IETF.
<p>
From the charter:</p><blockquote><div><p>The Multipath TCP (MPTCP) working group develops mechanisms that add the
capability of simultaneously using multiple paths to a regular TCP
session. The primary output of the group will be the protocol extensions
needed to deploy MPTCP, and adaptations to congestion control to safely
support multipath resource sharing.</p></div>
</blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You may be interested in the Multipath TCP working group [ ietf.org ] we 've just chartered in the IETF .
From the charter : The Multipath TCP ( MPTCP ) working group develops mechanisms that add the capability of simultaneously using multiple paths to a regular TCP session .
The primary output of the group will be the protocol extensions needed to deploy MPTCP , and adaptations to congestion control to safely support multipath resource sharing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You may be interested in the Multipath TCP working group [ietf.org] we've just chartered in the IETF.
From the charter:The Multipath TCP (MPTCP) working group develops mechanisms that add the
capability of simultaneously using multiple paths to a regular TCP
session.
The primary output of the group will be the protocol extensions
needed to deploy MPTCP, and adaptations to congestion control to safely
support multipath resource sharing.

	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29765583</id>
	<title>Re:tomato</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255624440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>im curious what happens with sessions on web sites and such that look at your IP address...</p><p>do you constantly have to re-login to such sites?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>im curious what happens with sessions on web sites and such that look at your IP address...do you constantly have to re-login to such sites ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>im curious what happens with sessions on web sites and such that look at your IP address...do you constantly have to re-login to such sites?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29764305</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29763907</id>
	<title>pat benatar?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255608360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>fucking cunt.</htmltext>
<tokenext>fucking cunt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>fucking cunt.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29764351</id>
	<title>Oh yes, you can! (It just costs money)</title>
	<author>JimProuty</author>
	<datestamp>1255611240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What people presume to know, sheesh!

Bandwidth Aggregation: Combining Internet Connections to Incrementally Increase Bandwidth Capacity

Bandwidth aggregation combines two or more Internet connections and gives Internet applications access to their total available bandwidth and increases reliability with link redundancy. PowerLink, ShieldLink and ClariLink bandwidth aggregation techniques (also known as multi-homing) support load balancing to route Internet sessions from congested links, to links with more available bandwidth. They also provide automatic failover of Internet sessions from failed links to functional connections to eliminate the Internet as a point of failure.

<a href="http://www.ecessa.com/pages/solutions/solutions\_technology\_bandwidth.php" title="ecessa.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.ecessa.com/pages/solutions/solutions\_technology\_bandwidth.php</a> [ecessa.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>What people presume to know , sheesh !
Bandwidth Aggregation : Combining Internet Connections to Incrementally Increase Bandwidth Capacity Bandwidth aggregation combines two or more Internet connections and gives Internet applications access to their total available bandwidth and increases reliability with link redundancy .
PowerLink , ShieldLink and ClariLink bandwidth aggregation techniques ( also known as multi-homing ) support load balancing to route Internet sessions from congested links , to links with more available bandwidth .
They also provide automatic failover of Internet sessions from failed links to functional connections to eliminate the Internet as a point of failure .
http : //www.ecessa.com/pages/solutions/solutions \ _technology \ _bandwidth.php [ ecessa.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What people presume to know, sheesh!
Bandwidth Aggregation: Combining Internet Connections to Incrementally Increase Bandwidth Capacity

Bandwidth aggregation combines two or more Internet connections and gives Internet applications access to their total available bandwidth and increases reliability with link redundancy.
PowerLink, ShieldLink and ClariLink bandwidth aggregation techniques (also known as multi-homing) support load balancing to route Internet sessions from congested links, to links with more available bandwidth.
They also provide automatic failover of Internet sessions from failed links to functional connections to eliminate the Internet as a point of failure.
http://www.ecessa.com/pages/solutions/solutions\_technology\_bandwidth.php [ecessa.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29764041</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29772679</id>
	<title>6 cell phone data links w stream encoder</title>
	<author>HongPong</author>
	<datestamp>1255685700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I heard about a backpack-sized setup that you can get which takes a video input, compresses to HD quality, then splits the outgoing signal onto six separate cell phone data links (three are 3G, three are standard).</p><p>This was pretty expensive for 30 hours/month service but in theory would let you do high quality video without a satellite uplink or other special gear.</p><p>Presumably stitching the data streams back together is a pretty big hat trick especially with low latency.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I heard about a backpack-sized setup that you can get which takes a video input , compresses to HD quality , then splits the outgoing signal onto six separate cell phone data links ( three are 3G , three are standard ) .This was pretty expensive for 30 hours/month service but in theory would let you do high quality video without a satellite uplink or other special gear.Presumably stitching the data streams back together is a pretty big hat trick especially with low latency .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I heard about a backpack-sized setup that you can get which takes a video input, compresses to HD quality, then splits the outgoing signal onto six separate cell phone data links (three are 3G, three are standard).This was pretty expensive for 30 hours/month service but in theory would let you do high quality video without a satellite uplink or other special gear.Presumably stitching the data streams back together is a pretty big hat trick especially with low latency.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29763929</id>
	<title>Bonded VPNs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255608480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have bonded 2 IPSec VPNs running over 2 ISP's to create a bigger (and cheaper) site-to-site link on the cheap.</p><p>http://www.zeroshell.net/eng/faq/vpn/</p><p>Read Point 5 in the link</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have bonded 2 IPSec VPNs running over 2 ISP 's to create a bigger ( and cheaper ) site-to-site link on the cheap.http : //www.zeroshell.net/eng/faq/vpn/Read Point 5 in the link</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have bonded 2 IPSec VPNs running over 2 ISP's to create a bigger (and cheaper) site-to-site link on the cheap.http://www.zeroshell.net/eng/faq/vpn/Read Point 5 in the link</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29764041</id>
	<title>You can't do what you want to do</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255609080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You didn't give us enough info, but it sounds like you want to aggregate multiple connections from *multiple ISPs*.  Which isn't really possible. Not like you want. You can achieve *failover*, but not aggregation.</p><p>Basically, you need to read a fucking book on how routing works.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You did n't give us enough info , but it sounds like you want to aggregate multiple connections from * multiple ISPs * .
Which is n't really possible .
Not like you want .
You can achieve * failover * , but not aggregation.Basically , you need to read a fucking book on how routing works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You didn't give us enough info, but it sounds like you want to aggregate multiple connections from *multiple ISPs*.
Which isn't really possible.
Not like you want.
You can achieve *failover*, but not aggregation.Basically, you need to read a fucking book on how routing works.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29764055</id>
	<title>Haven't tried this document but it looks promising</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255609140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://www.ssi.bg/~ja/nano.txt</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.ssi.bg/ ~ ja/nano.txt</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.ssi.bg/~ja/nano.txt</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29778049</id>
	<title>Re:You can't do what you want to do</title>
	<author>bruthasj</author>
	<datestamp>1255799160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Carpentry?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Carpentry ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Carpentry?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29764209</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29769915</id>
	<title>Re:(not) tomato</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255714320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've done this using FreeBSD on both ends on several occasions. We did it at a previous employer for an internal network in a bank connecting remote sites to the head office through multiple parallel ISPs for security and robustness reasons.</p><p>basically I used mpd (multilink PPP Daemon)<br>(available in FreeBSD packages/ports)<br>using it's "send each link over a udp or tcp session" feature. Then I bound the udp endpoints to different addresses each of which was in the address space of a different ISP that the machine was attached to, (it was attached directly to multiple ISPs).  The resulting IP packets were then run through IPSEC for encryption. In Modern FreeBSD you would have the added option of having the encapsulated sockets bound to a different routing table/FIB so that the payload and envelope packets are routed completely differently. The internal packets could be encrypted too so that in general you have an encrypted part packet fragment inside an encrypted envelope.</p><p>It worked well and was very robust.<br>The downside is you need to have  control over both sides of the link..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've done this using FreeBSD on both ends on several occasions .
We did it at a previous employer for an internal network in a bank connecting remote sites to the head office through multiple parallel ISPs for security and robustness reasons.basically I used mpd ( multilink PPP Daemon ) ( available in FreeBSD packages/ports ) using it 's " send each link over a udp or tcp session " feature .
Then I bound the udp endpoints to different addresses each of which was in the address space of a different ISP that the machine was attached to , ( it was attached directly to multiple ISPs ) .
The resulting IP packets were then run through IPSEC for encryption .
In Modern FreeBSD you would have the added option of having the encapsulated sockets bound to a different routing table/FIB so that the payload and envelope packets are routed completely differently .
The internal packets could be encrypted too so that in general you have an encrypted part packet fragment inside an encrypted envelope.It worked well and was very robust.The downside is you need to have control over both sides of the link. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've done this using FreeBSD on both ends on several occasions.
We did it at a previous employer for an internal network in a bank connecting remote sites to the head office through multiple parallel ISPs for security and robustness reasons.basically I used mpd (multilink PPP Daemon)(available in FreeBSD packages/ports)using it's "send each link over a udp or tcp session" feature.
Then I bound the udp endpoints to different addresses each of which was in the address space of a different ISP that the machine was attached to, (it was attached directly to multiple ISPs).
The resulting IP packets were then run through IPSEC for encryption.
In Modern FreeBSD you would have the added option of having the encapsulated sockets bound to a different routing table/FIB so that the payload and envelope packets are routed completely differently.
The internal packets could be encrypted too so that in general you have an encrypted part packet fragment inside an encrypted envelope.It worked well and was very robust.The downside is you need to have  control over both sides of the link..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29764305</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29765045</id>
	<title>Re:You can't do what you want to do</title>
	<author>Rozine</author>
	<datestamp>1255617720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>For something natively supported in Linux, this really isn't something that I'd say is impossible...</htmltext>
<tokenext>For something natively supported in Linux , this really is n't something that I 'd say is impossible.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For something natively supported in Linux, this really isn't something that I'd say is impossible...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29764041</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29767097</id>
	<title>Here's one way to do it on Linux</title>
	<author>Nicolas MONNET</author>
	<datestamp>1255695360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First you need a well connected end point. Here for example you can buy very cheap (30&euro;/month) unlimited bandwidth colocated servers. You just start an OpenVPN connection between that host and your Linux router on the site through each of your DSL lines. Using iptables random match, you mark each packet with one of two values. Then you use policy based routing to direct packets to one connection or the other based on the mark.<br>Then you just configure nat on the colocated host and add the proper default route on the local router. Voila.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First you need a well connected end point .
Here for example you can buy very cheap ( 30    /month ) unlimited bandwidth colocated servers .
You just start an OpenVPN connection between that host and your Linux router on the site through each of your DSL lines .
Using iptables random match , you mark each packet with one of two values .
Then you use policy based routing to direct packets to one connection or the other based on the mark.Then you just configure nat on the colocated host and add the proper default route on the local router .
Voila .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First you need a well connected end point.
Here for example you can buy very cheap (30€/month) unlimited bandwidth colocated servers.
You just start an OpenVPN connection between that host and your Linux router on the site through each of your DSL lines.
Using iptables random match, you mark each packet with one of two values.
Then you use policy based routing to direct packets to one connection or the other based on the mark.Then you just configure nat on the colocated host and add the proper default route on the local router.
Voila.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29766355</id>
	<title>Re:Only Half a dozen BSD and Linux Appliances...</title>
	<author>Vancorps</author>
	<datestamp>1255725060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think you missed the point as the question wasn't about having multiple WAN connections, that's easy, it was about bonding those connections so they are one big pipe. I'm sure there are products out there that will allow you to do it with Linux, I know there are BGP routers available that could handle the bonding necessary. Of course Ecessa is a less problematic approach as it's clustered and pretty easy to use right out of the box. I use them to bond 12 Internet connections in Florida when I do an event down there because I can't seem to get more than crap for bandwidth. On the other end I have optical Internet at gig speeds so it's pretty straight forward as long as you have clustered units on both ends. </p><p>WAN load balancing is relatively new and can still be very expensive to do properly. Ecessa was the first to do it affordably for small businesses. Of course I started using them when they were Astrocom. Ran into some VLAN funky behavior but once you get it working you set it and forget it and any approach that is that hands off is okay by me since I'm busy deploying enough switches to give hundreds Internet access for a 4 day event.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you missed the point as the question was n't about having multiple WAN connections , that 's easy , it was about bonding those connections so they are one big pipe .
I 'm sure there are products out there that will allow you to do it with Linux , I know there are BGP routers available that could handle the bonding necessary .
Of course Ecessa is a less problematic approach as it 's clustered and pretty easy to use right out of the box .
I use them to bond 12 Internet connections in Florida when I do an event down there because I ca n't seem to get more than crap for bandwidth .
On the other end I have optical Internet at gig speeds so it 's pretty straight forward as long as you have clustered units on both ends .
WAN load balancing is relatively new and can still be very expensive to do properly .
Ecessa was the first to do it affordably for small businesses .
Of course I started using them when they were Astrocom .
Ran into some VLAN funky behavior but once you get it working you set it and forget it and any approach that is that hands off is okay by me since I 'm busy deploying enough switches to give hundreds Internet access for a 4 day event .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you missed the point as the question wasn't about having multiple WAN connections, that's easy, it was about bonding those connections so they are one big pipe.
I'm sure there are products out there that will allow you to do it with Linux, I know there are BGP routers available that could handle the bonding necessary.
Of course Ecessa is a less problematic approach as it's clustered and pretty easy to use right out of the box.
I use them to bond 12 Internet connections in Florida when I do an event down there because I can't seem to get more than crap for bandwidth.
On the other end I have optical Internet at gig speeds so it's pretty straight forward as long as you have clustered units on both ends.
WAN load balancing is relatively new and can still be very expensive to do properly.
Ecessa was the first to do it affordably for small businesses.
Of course I started using them when they were Astrocom.
Ran into some VLAN funky behavior but once you get it working you set it and forget it and any approach that is that hands off is okay by me since I'm busy deploying enough switches to give hundreds Internet access for a 4 day event.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29764667</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29764509</id>
	<title>pfSense</title>
	<author>pdxp</author>
	<datestamp>1255612740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's got everything you'll need for Multi-WAN load balancing and failover, and supports many platforms.
<br> <br>
<a href="http://doc.pfsense.org/index.php/Multi\_WAN\_/\_Load\_Balancing" title="pfsense.org" rel="nofollow">pfSense Multi WAN / Load Balancing</a> [pfsense.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's got everything you 'll need for Multi-WAN load balancing and failover , and supports many platforms .
pfSense Multi WAN / Load Balancing [ pfsense.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's got everything you'll need for Multi-WAN load balancing and failover, and supports many platforms.
pfSense Multi WAN / Load Balancing [pfsense.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29764495</id>
	<title>Vyatta?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255612560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think it can do multi-WAN...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it can do multi-WAN.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it can do multi-WAN...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29767115</id>
	<title>Re:tomato</title>
	<author>Jellybob</author>
	<datestamp>1255695540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There aren't that many of them - certainly most of the web applications I've seen are checking for a session cookie, not checking what IP address you're coming from.</p><p>It's been requested a couple of times, but quite quickly disabled, because people coming in through proxies which use bonded lines aren't as rare as you might think, and people would keep getting their session dropped.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are n't that many of them - certainly most of the web applications I 've seen are checking for a session cookie , not checking what IP address you 're coming from.It 's been requested a couple of times , but quite quickly disabled , because people coming in through proxies which use bonded lines are n't as rare as you might think , and people would keep getting their session dropped .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There aren't that many of them - certainly most of the web applications I've seen are checking for a session cookie, not checking what IP address you're coming from.It's been requested a couple of times, but quite quickly disabled, because people coming in through proxies which use bonded lines aren't as rare as you might think, and people would keep getting their session dropped.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29765583</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29764695</id>
	<title>Wireless</title>
	<author>Tdawgless</author>
	<datestamp>1255614360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Are you trying to bond all of your neighbor's WAPs together so you can aggregate their bandwidth?

This could make bit torrenting an interesting thing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you trying to bond all of your neighbor 's WAPs together so you can aggregate their bandwidth ?
This could make bit torrenting an interesting thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you trying to bond all of your neighbor's WAPs together so you can aggregate their bandwidth?
This could make bit torrenting an interesting thing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29764439</id>
	<title>Re:pfSense</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255612080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I do something similar with pfSense.  We don't aggregate, but we route our servers out on a T1 and our users out on a Comcast line.  When the Comcast line goes down, we manually failover our users to the T1.</p><p>pfSense also supports load balancing based on multiple rule-types, round robin being the most common choice.  For inbound balancing you can split based on IP (we've done this when we've needed to stream A/V) and then aggregate offsite (also done this for A/V streaming).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do something similar with pfSense .
We do n't aggregate , but we route our servers out on a T1 and our users out on a Comcast line .
When the Comcast line goes down , we manually failover our users to the T1.pfSense also supports load balancing based on multiple rule-types , round robin being the most common choice .
For inbound balancing you can split based on IP ( we 've done this when we 've needed to stream A/V ) and then aggregate offsite ( also done this for A/V streaming ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I do something similar with pfSense.
We don't aggregate, but we route our servers out on a T1 and our users out on a Comcast line.
When the Comcast line goes down, we manually failover our users to the T1.pfSense also supports load balancing based on multiple rule-types, round robin being the most common choice.
For inbound balancing you can split based on IP (we've done this when we've needed to stream A/V) and then aggregate offsite (also done this for A/V streaming).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29764035</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29764239</id>
	<title>Re:You can't do what you want to do</title>
	<author>Penguinoflight</author>
	<datestamp>1255610460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It is possible as long as you have control of both endpoints.  The routing book is probably still a good idea.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is possible as long as you have control of both endpoints .
The routing book is probably still a good idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is possible as long as you have control of both endpoints.
The routing book is probably still a good idea.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29764041</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29767363</id>
	<title>Draytek Router</title>
	<author>fuzzywig</author>
	<datestamp>1255699320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>At work we've just picked up a <a href="http://www.draytek.co.uk/products/vigor2820.html" title="draytek.co.uk" rel="nofollow">Draytek Vigor 2820</a> [draytek.co.uk] ADSL router, it's a bit fuller featured than your usual home modem, and it also allows aggregating bandwidth between the built in ADSL modem and either a USB connected 3G modem or any other IP connection connected over ethernet.
We use the latter connected to a vanilla ADSL modem.
As a whole it seems to work pretty well, the web interface is nonstandard, but after a while I got used to it, and you can set it up to either keep both connections active, or only fail over to WAN2 at a predetermined bandwidth usage or on failure of WAN1 (built in ADSL).
Not sure what the OP is looking for, but the Vigor is just what we were looking for.  (they do other versions with built in wireless and voip)</htmltext>
<tokenext>At work we 've just picked up a Draytek Vigor 2820 [ draytek.co.uk ] ADSL router , it 's a bit fuller featured than your usual home modem , and it also allows aggregating bandwidth between the built in ADSL modem and either a USB connected 3G modem or any other IP connection connected over ethernet .
We use the latter connected to a vanilla ADSL modem .
As a whole it seems to work pretty well , the web interface is nonstandard , but after a while I got used to it , and you can set it up to either keep both connections active , or only fail over to WAN2 at a predetermined bandwidth usage or on failure of WAN1 ( built in ADSL ) .
Not sure what the OP is looking for , but the Vigor is just what we were looking for .
( they do other versions with built in wireless and voip )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At work we've just picked up a Draytek Vigor 2820 [draytek.co.uk] ADSL router, it's a bit fuller featured than your usual home modem, and it also allows aggregating bandwidth between the built in ADSL modem and either a USB connected 3G modem or any other IP connection connected over ethernet.
We use the latter connected to a vanilla ADSL modem.
As a whole it seems to work pretty well, the web interface is nonstandard, but after a while I got used to it, and you can set it up to either keep both connections active, or only fail over to WAN2 at a predetermined bandwidth usage or on failure of WAN1 (built in ADSL).
Not sure what the OP is looking for, but the Vigor is just what we were looking for.
(they do other versions with built in wireless and voip)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29764083</id>
	<title>Misread title</title>
	<author>Bovius</author>
	<datestamp>1255609320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At first glance I read "affordably aggravating ISP connections". As in respectably annoying without breaking the bank.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At first glance I read " affordably aggravating ISP connections " .
As in respectably annoying without breaking the bank .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At first glance I read "affordably aggravating ISP connections".
As in respectably annoying without breaking the bank.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29765105</id>
	<title>currently looking into this...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255618380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've been trying to find info on this for a little while.</p><p>Basically you have two methods: one is to get several internet connections, connect them to a machine/router and use load balance/pfsense/multippp. This gives you redundancy, load balance, and you can get faster d/l (for d/l multiple items) and is cheap. However, it does NOT provide a faster link. You have multiple connections, but any single d/l or u/l will only go as fast as one of the connections! For what I want this is unacceptable (trying to increase upload for a gameing server - because the IP's are different between two connections, we can't use load balancing for multiple connections). If anyone has found a way to link standard ADSL as a single connection for a single IP for faster upload, I'd REALLY like to hear it!</p><p>So from what I found we have the option of buying a huge connection (fibre or the like = VERY expensive), or something along the lines of BGP. BGP will link several connections, and from what I understand, pretty much makes you an extention of the services providers network. 1 IP, multiple connections reading as one endpoint. This is still expensive, but not as much as getting fibre laid out here. In my search I found one group that would do it for me, and the way they basically run is to put in a SDSL connection at 2M up/down, unlimited transfer. Then as you want faster, they just keep adding 2M lines up to about 24. However getting extra lines, the cost of the connections, and the cost of their modem/router is fairly prohibitive, but cheaper than a good fibre connection out here. As to what degree I'll get a better upload for the initial connection vs. ADSL would remain to be seen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been trying to find info on this for a little while.Basically you have two methods : one is to get several internet connections , connect them to a machine/router and use load balance/pfsense/multippp .
This gives you redundancy , load balance , and you can get faster d/l ( for d/l multiple items ) and is cheap .
However , it does NOT provide a faster link .
You have multiple connections , but any single d/l or u/l will only go as fast as one of the connections !
For what I want this is unacceptable ( trying to increase upload for a gameing server - because the IP 's are different between two connections , we ca n't use load balancing for multiple connections ) .
If anyone has found a way to link standard ADSL as a single connection for a single IP for faster upload , I 'd REALLY like to hear it ! So from what I found we have the option of buying a huge connection ( fibre or the like = VERY expensive ) , or something along the lines of BGP .
BGP will link several connections , and from what I understand , pretty much makes you an extention of the services providers network .
1 IP , multiple connections reading as one endpoint .
This is still expensive , but not as much as getting fibre laid out here .
In my search I found one group that would do it for me , and the way they basically run is to put in a SDSL connection at 2M up/down , unlimited transfer .
Then as you want faster , they just keep adding 2M lines up to about 24 .
However getting extra lines , the cost of the connections , and the cost of their modem/router is fairly prohibitive , but cheaper than a good fibre connection out here .
As to what degree I 'll get a better upload for the initial connection vs. ADSL would remain to be seen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been trying to find info on this for a little while.Basically you have two methods: one is to get several internet connections, connect them to a machine/router and use load balance/pfsense/multippp.
This gives you redundancy, load balance, and you can get faster d/l (for d/l multiple items) and is cheap.
However, it does NOT provide a faster link.
You have multiple connections, but any single d/l or u/l will only go as fast as one of the connections!
For what I want this is unacceptable (trying to increase upload for a gameing server - because the IP's are different between two connections, we can't use load balancing for multiple connections).
If anyone has found a way to link standard ADSL as a single connection for a single IP for faster upload, I'd REALLY like to hear it!So from what I found we have the option of buying a huge connection (fibre or the like = VERY expensive), or something along the lines of BGP.
BGP will link several connections, and from what I understand, pretty much makes you an extention of the services providers network.
1 IP, multiple connections reading as one endpoint.
This is still expensive, but not as much as getting fibre laid out here.
In my search I found one group that would do it for me, and the way they basically run is to put in a SDSL connection at 2M up/down, unlimited transfer.
Then as you want faster, they just keep adding 2M lines up to about 24.
However getting extra lines, the cost of the connections, and the cost of their modem/router is fairly prohibitive, but cheaper than a good fibre connection out here.
As to what degree I'll get a better upload for the initial connection vs. ADSL would remain to be seen.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29764195</id>
	<title>Dreytek</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255610160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The higher end dreytek business modems support at least two aggregate DSL links.

The real question is, do you want a wider pipe, or a faster pipe. One is easy, the other not so easy.

Bigger trucks in your tubes, or faster trucks in your tubes<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)

(sorry couldnt resist that analogy)</htmltext>
<tokenext>The higher end dreytek business modems support at least two aggregate DSL links .
The real question is , do you want a wider pipe , or a faster pipe .
One is easy , the other not so easy .
Bigger trucks in your tubes , or faster trucks in your tubes : ) ( sorry couldnt resist that analogy )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The higher end dreytek business modems support at least two aggregate DSL links.
The real question is, do you want a wider pipe, or a faster pipe.
One is easy, the other not so easy.
Bigger trucks in your tubes, or faster trucks in your tubes :)

(sorry couldnt resist that analogy)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29764583</id>
	<title>Re:You can't do what you want to do</title>
	<author>timmarhy</author>
	<datestamp>1255613280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>you might want to have a read of that routing book as well, since it's possible to use 2 different isp's and still increase aggregate speed....</htmltext>
<tokenext>you might want to have a read of that routing book as well , since it 's possible to use 2 different isp 's and still increase aggregate speed... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you might want to have a read of that routing book as well, since it's possible to use 2 different isp's and still increase aggregate speed....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29764041</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29813117</id>
	<title>Re:Pering</title>
	<author>lamapper</author>
	<datestamp>1256071260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>lol, that was a typo, I had to search for 0K to find it, comes from my first post, should have read 40Kbps as like me, he wants to be conservative in his estimate, the reality is worse than 40Kbps 85\% - 95\% of the time.

</p><p>It should have read</p><p><div class="quote"><p>A friend of mine was pissed that he was throttled back to less than 100Kbps down and 40Kbps up 85 - 95\% of the time.</p></div><p>Since the other related quotes all have either 30K or 40K and state that the bandwidth is "shaped" to less than 0Kbps on a regular basis, I will assume that you are having some fun with me at my expense.  Good catch and I have a great sense of humor.  Thanks for allowing me to correct it.

</p><p>Hopefully my point was well understood in spite of that typo...at least I hope so.  The simple point is that both my friend and I are prevented from getting acceptable bandwidths to surf the Internet, <b>with one Cable provider specifically</b>, approximately 80\% -95\% of the time. In reality it is something higher than 95\% of the time, but by stating either 80\% to 95\% or 85\% to 95\% of the time, we both are being conservative.

</p><p>These quotes are from the two posts, related to the percentage of time (restricted, filtered, throttled, prevented, censored, , shaping, etc...) in addition to the one above:

</p><p>From the first post, <a href="http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1406513&amp;cid=29766339" title="slashdot.org">#29766339</a> [slashdot.org] </p><p><div class="quote"><p>Guess what his speed was after the switch over....Yep less than 100K (down) and 40K upstream 95\% of the time. When he is throttled back to 0Kbps like I am, the videos sputter, gMail, twitter, Facebook and MySpace will not load because of the little extra bandwidth required for the skins and CSS markup language.</p> </div><p>From the second post, <a href="http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1406513&amp;cid=29766339" title="slashdot.org">#29766339</a> [slashdot.org] </p><p><div class="quote"><p>Yet he was throttled, restricted, prevented from getting bandwidths higher than 100Kbps downstream and 30 to 40Kbps upstream about 85\% to 95\% of the time. (We have talked and we both believe that we are throttled back about 98\% of the time, however we wanted to be conservative in our criticism)</p></div><p><div class="quote"><p>However he is getting less than 100K down and less than 40K up well over 85\% of the time.</p></div><p><div class="quote"><p>We suspect that every cable providing Internet access does this same thing and that most people do not have a firewall/router with software capable of showing them their bandwidth in real time; so in reality most people do NOT know.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>lol , that was a typo , I had to search for 0K to find it , comes from my first post , should have read 40Kbps as like me , he wants to be conservative in his estimate , the reality is worse than 40Kbps 85 \ % - 95 \ % of the time .
It should have readA friend of mine was pissed that he was throttled back to less than 100Kbps down and 40Kbps up 85 - 95 \ % of the time.Since the other related quotes all have either 30K or 40K and state that the bandwidth is " shaped " to less than 0Kbps on a regular basis , I will assume that you are having some fun with me at my expense .
Good catch and I have a great sense of humor .
Thanks for allowing me to correct it .
Hopefully my point was well understood in spite of that typo...at least I hope so .
The simple point is that both my friend and I are prevented from getting acceptable bandwidths to surf the Internet , with one Cable provider specifically , approximately 80 \ % -95 \ % of the time .
In reality it is something higher than 95 \ % of the time , but by stating either 80 \ % to 95 \ % or 85 \ % to 95 \ % of the time , we both are being conservative .
These quotes are from the two posts , related to the percentage of time ( restricted , filtered , throttled , prevented , censored , , shaping , etc... ) in addition to the one above : From the first post , # 29766339 [ slashdot.org ] Guess what his speed was after the switch over....Yep less than 100K ( down ) and 40K upstream 95 \ % of the time .
When he is throttled back to 0Kbps like I am , the videos sputter , gMail , twitter , Facebook and MySpace will not load because of the little extra bandwidth required for the skins and CSS markup language .
From the second post , # 29766339 [ slashdot.org ] Yet he was throttled , restricted , prevented from getting bandwidths higher than 100Kbps downstream and 30 to 40Kbps upstream about 85 \ % to 95 \ % of the time .
( We have talked and we both believe that we are throttled back about 98 \ % of the time , however we wanted to be conservative in our criticism ) However he is getting less than 100K down and less than 40K up well over 85 \ % of the time.We suspect that every cable providing Internet access does this same thing and that most people do not have a firewall/router with software capable of showing them their bandwidth in real time ; so in reality most people do NOT know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>lol, that was a typo, I had to search for 0K to find it, comes from my first post, should have read 40Kbps as like me, he wants to be conservative in his estimate, the reality is worse than 40Kbps 85\% - 95\% of the time.
It should have readA friend of mine was pissed that he was throttled back to less than 100Kbps down and 40Kbps up 85 - 95\% of the time.Since the other related quotes all have either 30K or 40K and state that the bandwidth is "shaped" to less than 0Kbps on a regular basis, I will assume that you are having some fun with me at my expense.
Good catch and I have a great sense of humor.
Thanks for allowing me to correct it.
Hopefully my point was well understood in spite of that typo...at least I hope so.
The simple point is that both my friend and I are prevented from getting acceptable bandwidths to surf the Internet, with one Cable provider specifically, approximately 80\% -95\% of the time.
In reality it is something higher than 95\% of the time, but by stating either 80\% to 95\% or 85\% to 95\% of the time, we both are being conservative.
These quotes are from the two posts, related to the percentage of time (restricted, filtered, throttled, prevented, censored, , shaping, etc...) in addition to the one above:

From the first post, #29766339 [slashdot.org] Guess what his speed was after the switch over....Yep less than 100K (down) and 40K upstream 95\% of the time.
When he is throttled back to 0Kbps like I am, the videos sputter, gMail, twitter, Facebook and MySpace will not load because of the little extra bandwidth required for the skins and CSS markup language.
From the second post, #29766339 [slashdot.org] Yet he was throttled, restricted, prevented from getting bandwidths higher than 100Kbps downstream and 30 to 40Kbps upstream about 85\% to 95\% of the time.
(We have talked and we both believe that we are throttled back about 98\% of the time, however we wanted to be conservative in our criticism)However he is getting less than 100K down and less than 40K up well over 85\% of the time.We suspect that every cable providing Internet access does this same thing and that most people do not have a firewall/router with software capable of showing them their bandwidth in real time; so in reality most people do NOT know.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29801501</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29765937</id>
	<title>Re:Peering</title>
	<author>unity</author>
	<datestamp>1255629840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've been using the hotbrick LB-2 for years to aggregate dsl and cable lines.  Works like a charm.<br><a href="http://www.hotbrick.com/produto.asp?tipo=3&amp;catpro=2" title="hotbrick.com">http://www.hotbrick.com/produto.asp?tipo=3&amp;catpro=2</a> [hotbrick.com]</p><p>I thought they had up to a 4connection version, but I don't see it anymore.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been using the hotbrick LB-2 for years to aggregate dsl and cable lines .
Works like a charm.http : //www.hotbrick.com/produto.asp ? tipo = 3&amp;catpro = 2 [ hotbrick.com ] I thought they had up to a 4connection version , but I do n't see it anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been using the hotbrick LB-2 for years to aggregate dsl and cable lines.
Works like a charm.http://www.hotbrick.com/produto.asp?tipo=3&amp;catpro=2 [hotbrick.com]I thought they had up to a 4connection version, but I don't see it anymore.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29765397</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29766057</id>
	<title>Linux Advanced Routing and Traffic Control</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255632600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hi,</p><p>If you are familiar with Linux you could Linux Advanced Routing and Traffic control (www.lartc.org) a try. Works for me budenling together three DSL lines.</p><p>Michael.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hi,If you are familiar with Linux you could Linux Advanced Routing and Traffic control ( www.lartc.org ) a try .
Works for me budenling together three DSL lines.Michael .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hi,If you are familiar with Linux you could Linux Advanced Routing and Traffic control (www.lartc.org) a try.
Works for me budenling together three DSL lines.Michael.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29764935</id>
	<title>iproute2</title>
	<author>crazybit</author>
	<datestamp>1255616760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Linux &amp; iproute2 should be more than enough for what you want.<br> <br> <a href="http://lartc.org/howto/lartc.rpdb.multiple-links.html" title="lartc.org">"Routing for multiple uplinks/providers"</a> [lartc.org] <br> <br>Once the load balancing has been stablished you can set up OpenVPN to encrypt the traffic between the two (I like using openvpn + brigde to do a Layer 2 vpn). You can even get more fancy and add traffic shaping to distribute bandwith, prioritize packets (for a lower latency in ssh or terminal server traffic for example).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Linux &amp; iproute2 should be more than enough for what you want .
" Routing for multiple uplinks/providers " [ lartc.org ] Once the load balancing has been stablished you can set up OpenVPN to encrypt the traffic between the two ( I like using openvpn + brigde to do a Layer 2 vpn ) .
You can even get more fancy and add traffic shaping to distribute bandwith , prioritize packets ( for a lower latency in ssh or terminal server traffic for example ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Linux &amp; iproute2 should be more than enough for what you want.
"Routing for multiple uplinks/providers" [lartc.org]  Once the load balancing has been stablished you can set up OpenVPN to encrypt the traffic between the two (I like using openvpn + brigde to do a Layer 2 vpn).
You can even get more fancy and add traffic shaping to distribute bandwith, prioritize packets (for a lower latency in ssh or terminal server traffic for example).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29766425</id>
	<title>Linux Iproute2 is all you need</title>
	<author>SectoidRandom</author>
	<datestamp>1255726200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A few years back I did this with a colleague, we actually investigated 3 solutions; 2 commercial and one linux script based, in the end the one that won easily was the Linux script.</p><p>Basically using iproute2 and some nice scripts gives you the ability to load balance your outbound packets and then using some relatively simple scripts to monitor each remote peer for automatic failover.</p><p>A quick google turns up this blogger who sounds (from a quick skim) like he's doing the same thing: <a href="http://blog.taragana.com/index.php/archive/how-to-load-balancing-failover-with-dual-multi-wan-adsl-cable-connections-on-linux/" title="taragana.com">http://blog.taragana.com/index.php/archive/how-to-load-balancing-failover-with-dual-multi-wan-adsl-cable-connections-on-linux/</a> [taragana.com]</p><p>Unfortunately I can't remember the commercial solutions we tested (this was 4-5 years ago!), but although they did exactly what you wanted perfectly, our problem was that we were doing this for a managed services company who ran 150+ IPSEC VPN's over those (at the time) 3 bonded ADSL connections, needless to say the commercial solutions had never imagined anyone trying to statefully balance that many VPNs! However with some tweaking (to be honest a LOT of tweaking) we got the Linux solution working a treat, even with nearly seamless failover.</p><p>Google is your friend on this one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A few years back I did this with a colleague , we actually investigated 3 solutions ; 2 commercial and one linux script based , in the end the one that won easily was the Linux script.Basically using iproute2 and some nice scripts gives you the ability to load balance your outbound packets and then using some relatively simple scripts to monitor each remote peer for automatic failover.A quick google turns up this blogger who sounds ( from a quick skim ) like he 's doing the same thing : http : //blog.taragana.com/index.php/archive/how-to-load-balancing-failover-with-dual-multi-wan-adsl-cable-connections-on-linux/ [ taragana.com ] Unfortunately I ca n't remember the commercial solutions we tested ( this was 4-5 years ago !
) , but although they did exactly what you wanted perfectly , our problem was that we were doing this for a managed services company who ran 150 + IPSEC VPN 's over those ( at the time ) 3 bonded ADSL connections , needless to say the commercial solutions had never imagined anyone trying to statefully balance that many VPNs !
However with some tweaking ( to be honest a LOT of tweaking ) we got the Linux solution working a treat , even with nearly seamless failover.Google is your friend on this one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A few years back I did this with a colleague, we actually investigated 3 solutions; 2 commercial and one linux script based, in the end the one that won easily was the Linux script.Basically using iproute2 and some nice scripts gives you the ability to load balance your outbound packets and then using some relatively simple scripts to monitor each remote peer for automatic failover.A quick google turns up this blogger who sounds (from a quick skim) like he's doing the same thing: http://blog.taragana.com/index.php/archive/how-to-load-balancing-failover-with-dual-multi-wan-adsl-cable-connections-on-linux/ [taragana.com]Unfortunately I can't remember the commercial solutions we tested (this was 4-5 years ago!
), but although they did exactly what you wanted perfectly, our problem was that we were doing this for a managed services company who ran 150+ IPSEC VPN's over those (at the time) 3 bonded ADSL connections, needless to say the commercial solutions had never imagined anyone trying to statefully balance that many VPNs!
However with some tweaking (to be honest a LOT of tweaking) we got the Linux solution working a treat, even with nearly seamless failover.Google is your friend on this one.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29765131</id>
	<title>Re:tomato</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255618740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yea, ML-PPP doesn't seem to have that much documentation, but that's mostly because it's so incredibly simple.  I was actually amazed.  You just put "multilink" in the config files on both ends, and it pretty much just works...</p><p>Other than that, just use PF and load-balance.  It's pretty close to functionally the same in many instances.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yea , ML-PPP does n't seem to have that much documentation , but that 's mostly because it 's so incredibly simple .
I was actually amazed .
You just put " multilink " in the config files on both ends , and it pretty much just works...Other than that , just use PF and load-balance .
It 's pretty close to functionally the same in many instances .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yea, ML-PPP doesn't seem to have that much documentation, but that's mostly because it's so incredibly simple.
I was actually amazed.
You just put "multilink" in the config files on both ends, and it pretty much just works...Other than that, just use PF and load-balance.
It's pretty close to functionally the same in many instances.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29764033</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29763977</id>
	<title>Have experience with Ecessa...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255608720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We've been using 2 Powerlinks from Ecessa (back when they were Astrocom). They work really well, and the price is tough to beat. We have one in our Dallas branch (with a T1 and business cable ISP) and one at our home office in Baton Rouge (a dual bonded T1 and business cable). They are channel bonded with each other, so the site-to-site VPN is more stable. They made my life a lot easier!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We 've been using 2 Powerlinks from Ecessa ( back when they were Astrocom ) .
They work really well , and the price is tough to beat .
We have one in our Dallas branch ( with a T1 and business cable ISP ) and one at our home office in Baton Rouge ( a dual bonded T1 and business cable ) .
They are channel bonded with each other , so the site-to-site VPN is more stable .
They made my life a lot easier !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We've been using 2 Powerlinks from Ecessa (back when they were Astrocom).
They work really well, and the price is tough to beat.
We have one in our Dallas branch (with a T1 and business cable ISP) and one at our home office in Baton Rouge (a dual bonded T1 and business cable).
They are channel bonded with each other, so the site-to-site VPN is more stable.
They made my life a lot easier!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29764667</id>
	<title>Only Half a dozen BSD and Linux Appliances...</title>
	<author>thatkid\_2002</author>
	<datestamp>1255614060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not one to yell at noobs but I really can't imagine timothy did more than a Bing search because I see that pfSense comes up on the first page of results on Google when you query "multi wan".</p><p>PfSense is probably the go for this, but you are free to choose any other BSD or Linux based distro which gives you a nice pretty point and click web interface out of the box and good online documentation on how to use the features.</p><p>
Hell, you don't even actually need physical hardware for this provided that you have two NICs available and a virtualization capable server.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not one to yell at noobs but I really ca n't imagine timothy did more than a Bing search because I see that pfSense comes up on the first page of results on Google when you query " multi wan " .PfSense is probably the go for this , but you are free to choose any other BSD or Linux based distro which gives you a nice pretty point and click web interface out of the box and good online documentation on how to use the features .
Hell , you do n't even actually need physical hardware for this provided that you have two NICs available and a virtualization capable server .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not one to yell at noobs but I really can't imagine timothy did more than a Bing search because I see that pfSense comes up on the first page of results on Google when you query "multi wan".PfSense is probably the go for this, but you are free to choose any other BSD or Linux based distro which gives you a nice pretty point and click web interface out of the box and good online documentation on how to use the features.
Hell, you don't even actually need physical hardware for this provided that you have two NICs available and a virtualization capable server.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29763917</id>
	<title>Don't be so cheap</title>
	<author>solid\_liq</author>
	<datestamp>1255608480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Use a point to point T1 just like all the other small businesses out there.  Even small businesses can afford it.  They just may not want to pay for it, but they will.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Use a point to point T1 just like all the other small businesses out there .
Even small businesses can afford it .
They just may not want to pay for it , but they will .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Use a point to point T1 just like all the other small businesses out there.
Even small businesses can afford it.
They just may not want to pay for it, but they will.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29768927</id>
	<title>CARP and pfsync</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255709340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about CARP and pfsync.  pfsense firewall has these features built in and has been documented to work well.  I have not had the opportunity to use in a production environment but have setup a 2 provider instance in a home environment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about CARP and pfsync .
pfsense firewall has these features built in and has been documented to work well .
I have not had the opportunity to use in a production environment but have setup a 2 provider instance in a home environment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about CARP and pfsync.
pfsense firewall has these features built in and has been documented to work well.
I have not had the opportunity to use in a production environment but have setup a 2 provider instance in a home environment.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29764757</id>
	<title>Linux, with "Advanced Router" features</title>
	<author>Sipper</author>
	<datestamp>1255615080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Someone I know did this by setting up Linux routers with "Advanced Router" kernel features -- namely source-routing on established connections, so that established TCP connections could be consistently kept onto a single ISP connection.  Without doing this then packets can be sent (or received) from an IP address not associated with the TCP connection, so they're dropped.</p><p>Obviously this won't work on UDP packets, since they're stateless; so if you have programs that need to stream data via UDP, that will be an issue.</p><p>Good luck with the project.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Someone I know did this by setting up Linux routers with " Advanced Router " kernel features -- namely source-routing on established connections , so that established TCP connections could be consistently kept onto a single ISP connection .
Without doing this then packets can be sent ( or received ) from an IP address not associated with the TCP connection , so they 're dropped.Obviously this wo n't work on UDP packets , since they 're stateless ; so if you have programs that need to stream data via UDP , that will be an issue.Good luck with the project .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someone I know did this by setting up Linux routers with "Advanced Router" kernel features -- namely source-routing on established connections, so that established TCP connections could be consistently kept onto a single ISP connection.
Without doing this then packets can be sent (or received) from an IP address not associated with the TCP connection, so they're dropped.Obviously this won't work on UDP packets, since they're stateless; so if you have programs that need to stream data via UDP, that will be an issue.Good luck with the project.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29764151</id>
	<title>HTTP proxy doing range requests</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255609800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I had an idea for how to do this - has anyone tried using a HTTP proxy, and having it split up large downloads across multiple HTTP range requests, each going out of a separate WAN connection?</p><p>In other words, given N connections to the internet: Small requests are load balanced by simply doing round-robin.  When the response starts coming in, if the object size is more than say 10MB, the proxy goes and issues N-1 additional range requests across each of the other WAN connections for equal sized chunks (or sized in proportion to the speed of each link, if they're different speeds).</p><p>And this could be done a lot better with some additions to the HTTP protocol. A "stride" parameter for example...</p><p>Of course it is not trivial but I think for static objects it is imminently feasible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I had an idea for how to do this - has anyone tried using a HTTP proxy , and having it split up large downloads across multiple HTTP range requests , each going out of a separate WAN connection ? In other words , given N connections to the internet : Small requests are load balanced by simply doing round-robin .
When the response starts coming in , if the object size is more than say 10MB , the proxy goes and issues N-1 additional range requests across each of the other WAN connections for equal sized chunks ( or sized in proportion to the speed of each link , if they 're different speeds ) .And this could be done a lot better with some additions to the HTTP protocol .
A " stride " parameter for example...Of course it is not trivial but I think for static objects it is imminently feasible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had an idea for how to do this - has anyone tried using a HTTP proxy, and having it split up large downloads across multiple HTTP range requests, each going out of a separate WAN connection?In other words, given N connections to the internet: Small requests are load balanced by simply doing round-robin.
When the response starts coming in, if the object size is more than say 10MB, the proxy goes and issues N-1 additional range requests across each of the other WAN connections for equal sized chunks (or sized in proportion to the speed of each link, if they're different speeds).And this could be done a lot better with some additions to the HTTP protocol.
A "stride" parameter for example...Of course it is not trivial but I think for static objects it is imminently feasible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29763851</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29764643</id>
	<title>Re:You can't do what you want to do</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255613880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>After reading some of the subsequent posts about Talari and Sharedband.com, I think your post about reading a fucking book on how routing works makes you look like a retard.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After reading some of the subsequent posts about Talari and Sharedband.com , I think your post about reading a fucking book on how routing works makes you look like a retard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After reading some of the subsequent posts about Talari and Sharedband.com, I think your post about reading a fucking book on how routing works makes you look like a retard.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29764041</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29767095</id>
	<title>Multi-Link PPP</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255695360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What's so tricky about setting this up?  Even the cheap Cisco 1800 series routers from years back support it.  You just put one on each end and use the appropriate line cards and set it up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's so tricky about setting this up ?
Even the cheap Cisco 1800 series routers from years back support it .
You just put one on each end and use the appropriate line cards and set it up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's so tricky about setting this up?
Even the cheap Cisco 1800 series routers from years back support it.
You just put one on each end and use the appropriate line cards and set it up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29767493</id>
	<title>What he's basically asking is...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255700580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He's asking a question that I once wondered about.</p><p>There's about 30 unsecured wireless internet connections my router can connect to in my apartment complex that are a good mix of cable and dsl.  Can I rig up something that connects to every single one of them and uses the aggregate bandwidth to pull crap down at stupidly fast speeds.  An example for clarification: There are 10 cable modems that I can connect to each one has a 6 meg connection, there are another 15 dsl modems each running at 3 meg connections.  The aggregate connection speed would equate to a 105 meg connection.</p><p>What can I do to make use of this untapped potential?</p><p>I never figured out a solution that didn't involve buying a bunch of equipment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He 's asking a question that I once wondered about.There 's about 30 unsecured wireless internet connections my router can connect to in my apartment complex that are a good mix of cable and dsl .
Can I rig up something that connects to every single one of them and uses the aggregate bandwidth to pull crap down at stupidly fast speeds .
An example for clarification : There are 10 cable modems that I can connect to each one has a 6 meg connection , there are another 15 dsl modems each running at 3 meg connections .
The aggregate connection speed would equate to a 105 meg connection.What can I do to make use of this untapped potential ? I never figured out a solution that did n't involve buying a bunch of equipment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He's asking a question that I once wondered about.There's about 30 unsecured wireless internet connections my router can connect to in my apartment complex that are a good mix of cable and dsl.
Can I rig up something that connects to every single one of them and uses the aggregate bandwidth to pull crap down at stupidly fast speeds.
An example for clarification: There are 10 cable modems that I can connect to each one has a 6 meg connection, there are another 15 dsl modems each running at 3 meg connections.
The aggregate connection speed would equate to a 105 meg connection.What can I do to make use of this untapped potential?I never figured out a solution that didn't involve buying a bunch of equipment.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29765397</id>
	<title>Re:Peering</title>
	<author>wgoodman</author>
	<datestamp>1255622220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I know linksys has a couple routers (both the RV042 and RV082) that supports 2 incoming broadband connections with link aggregation (or it can use it as failover) if you used two of these and set up a VPN it would be fairly cheap/easy (under $500 easy)  I just looked on their site but since the Linksys business stuff is now buried in Cisco's crappy site, i was unable to find a link.  I've seen them at Fry's plenty of times. I've used several of them and they tend to be fairly stable.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know linksys has a couple routers ( both the RV042 and RV082 ) that supports 2 incoming broadband connections with link aggregation ( or it can use it as failover ) if you used two of these and set up a VPN it would be fairly cheap/easy ( under $ 500 easy ) I just looked on their site but since the Linksys business stuff is now buried in Cisco 's crappy site , i was unable to find a link .
I 've seen them at Fry 's plenty of times .
I 've used several of them and they tend to be fairly stable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know linksys has a couple routers (both the RV042 and RV082) that supports 2 incoming broadband connections with link aggregation (or it can use it as failover) if you used two of these and set up a VPN it would be fairly cheap/easy (under $500 easy)  I just looked on their site but since the Linksys business stuff is now buried in Cisco's crappy site, i was unable to find a link.
I've seen them at Fry's plenty of times.
I've used several of them and they tend to be fairly stable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29763851</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29764349</id>
	<title>Solution</title>
	<author>waTR</author>
	<datestamp>1255611180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>See the following sites:<br>
<a href="http://www.linuxfoundation.org/en/Net:Bonding" title="linuxfoundation.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.linuxfoundation.org/en/Net:Bonding</a> [linuxfoundation.org] <br>
<a href="http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1238308" title="ubuntuforums.org" rel="nofollow">http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1238308</a> [ubuntuforums.org] <br>
<br> <br>
That should give you a good start.</htmltext>
<tokenext>See the following sites : http : //www.linuxfoundation.org/en/Net : Bonding [ linuxfoundation.org ] http : //ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php ? t = 1238308 [ ubuntuforums.org ] That should give you a good start .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>See the following sites:
http://www.linuxfoundation.org/en/Net:Bonding [linuxfoundation.org] 
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1238308 [ubuntuforums.org] 
 
That should give you a good start.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29769273</id>
	<title>Re:tomato</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255711200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Neither the remote nor xSLAM need to support Multilink.  As long as the packets are not purposely dropped (and they should not be) on the way to your ISP, it will work.</p><p>Only your ISP has to support this.</p><p>This is why MLPPP providers such as TSi are able to offer the service all the while using Bell Canada's DSL network.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Neither the remote nor xSLAM need to support Multilink .
As long as the packets are not purposely dropped ( and they should not be ) on the way to your ISP , it will work.Only your ISP has to support this.This is why MLPPP providers such as TSi are able to offer the service all the while using Bell Canada 's DSL network .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Neither the remote nor xSLAM need to support Multilink.
As long as the packets are not purposely dropped (and they should not be) on the way to your ISP, it will work.Only your ISP has to support this.This is why MLPPP providers such as TSi are able to offer the service all the while using Bell Canada's DSL network.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29764305</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29765733</id>
	<title>Re:Need More Infos</title>
	<author>ScarKnee</author>
	<datestamp>1255627020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That isn't possible because you'd have packets in the same stream taking different routes and TCP/IP doesn't allow for that, that I know of. </p></div><p>Actually you can do it.  We used to do it at work between a couple of sites.  We had a T1 and a DSL line.  We used an off-the-shelf product from Fatpipe (http://www.fatpipeinc.com/) that can do just that over various types of connections.  Not cheap/free, though, so it doesn't fit the poster's need.</p><p>I am sure there are several methods of accomplishing the same end.  We liked the support they provided.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That is n't possible because you 'd have packets in the same stream taking different routes and TCP/IP does n't allow for that , that I know of .
Actually you can do it .
We used to do it at work between a couple of sites .
We had a T1 and a DSL line .
We used an off-the-shelf product from Fatpipe ( http : //www.fatpipeinc.com/ ) that can do just that over various types of connections .
Not cheap/free , though , so it does n't fit the poster 's need.I am sure there are several methods of accomplishing the same end .
We liked the support they provided .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That isn't possible because you'd have packets in the same stream taking different routes and TCP/IP doesn't allow for that, that I know of.
Actually you can do it.
We used to do it at work between a couple of sites.
We had a T1 and a DSL line.
We used an off-the-shelf product from Fatpipe (http://www.fatpipeinc.com/) that can do just that over various types of connections.
Not cheap/free, though, so it doesn't fit the poster's need.I am sure there are several methods of accomplishing the same end.
We liked the support they provided.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29764507</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29764511</id>
	<title>The answer depends on the fine details.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255612740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you want to enhance single-flow performance, then MLPPP or round-robin per-packet balancing is what you'd want, but would require the cooperation of your ISP.    This isn't possible with multiple ISPs.</p><p>Alternatively, if you were trying to enhance performance between home and $job, or just wanted to steal bandwidth from $employer, then you could plop down a device at the office, then build a tunnel to it over each ISP connection, and then balance your traffic over those tunnels, likely at the expense of god awful latency and jitter.</p><p>If single-flow performance im&#252;provement isn't on the agenda, but aggregate improvement is (i.e. to improve peer-to-peer download), then you could run through a PAT device that would source traffic from IP#1, IP#2,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... and then shoot it down Connection#1, #2,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...       This would be like server load balancing in reverse.   I can't think of an app or device that would do this, but it would be pretty easy.   You could probably do this with a cheap-o Cisco router with one ethernet/vlan to ISP#1, one to ISP#2, and one to Inside network, and then have two PAT configs tied into an extended ACL matching on destination traffic, and tell it to break out the traffic between the two PAT configs based on a wildcard match of 1/0 of the last bit in the IP (i.e. even/odd).    I've used a similar config to balance many inside hosts in a pinch to many outside cheap ISP connections.   I.e. last bits = 00, you get upstream#1 PAT,  last bits = 01, you get upstream#2,  last bits = 10, you get upstream #3,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>int Fa0.1<br>
&nbsp; desc Inside<br>
&nbsp; ip addr 10.42.42.42 255.0.0.0<br>
&nbsp; encaps dot1q 1 native<br>
&nbsp; ip nat inside<br>int Fa0.100<br>
&nbsp; desc isp#1<br>
&nbsp; encaps dot1q 100<br>
&nbsp; ip nat outside<br>
&nbsp; ip addr dhcp<br>int Fa0/0.101<br>
&nbsp; desc isp#2<br>
&nbsp; encaps dot1q 101<br>
&nbsp; ip nat outside<br>
&nbsp; ip addr dhcp<br>ip nat inside source list 100 int Fa0.100 overload<br>ip nat inside source list 101 int Fa0.101 overload<br>access-list 100 permit ip 10.0.0.0 0.255.255.255 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.254<br>access&#246;list 101 permit ip 10.0.0.0 0.255.255.255 0.0.0.1 255.255.255.254</p><p>As a side-note, you may even be able to do per-packet balancing on outbound.   Some ISPs will do uRPF, an anti-spoofing measure that prevents you from sourcing traffic from IPs that aren't routed back to the connection your ISP receives them on.    Some ISP's don't.<br>Otherwise, you can policy-route the outbound traffic.</p><p>I'm sure you could whip up a similar config using unix packet filter of choice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you want to enhance single-flow performance , then MLPPP or round-robin per-packet balancing is what you 'd want , but would require the cooperation of your ISP .
This is n't possible with multiple ISPs.Alternatively , if you were trying to enhance performance between home and $ job , or just wanted to steal bandwidth from $ employer , then you could plop down a device at the office , then build a tunnel to it over each ISP connection , and then balance your traffic over those tunnels , likely at the expense of god awful latency and jitter.If single-flow performance im   provement is n't on the agenda , but aggregate improvement is ( i.e .
to improve peer-to-peer download ) , then you could run through a PAT device that would source traffic from IP # 1 , IP # 2 , ... and then shoot it down Connection # 1 , # 2 , ... This would be like server load balancing in reverse .
I ca n't think of an app or device that would do this , but it would be pretty easy .
You could probably do this with a cheap-o Cisco router with one ethernet/vlan to ISP # 1 , one to ISP # 2 , and one to Inside network , and then have two PAT configs tied into an extended ACL matching on destination traffic , and tell it to break out the traffic between the two PAT configs based on a wildcard match of 1/0 of the last bit in the IP ( i.e .
even/odd ) . I 've used a similar config to balance many inside hosts in a pinch to many outside cheap ISP connections .
I.e. last bits = 00 , you get upstream # 1 PAT , last bits = 01 , you get upstream # 2 , last bits = 10 , you get upstream # 3 , ...int Fa0.1   desc Inside   ip addr 10.42.42.42 255.0.0.0   encaps dot1q 1 native   ip nat insideint Fa0.100   desc isp # 1   encaps dot1q 100   ip nat outside   ip addr dhcpint Fa0/0.101   desc isp # 2   encaps dot1q 101   ip nat outside   ip addr dhcpip nat inside source list 100 int Fa0.100 overloadip nat inside source list 101 int Fa0.101 overloadaccess-list 100 permit ip 10.0.0.0 0.255.255.255 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.254access   list 101 permit ip 10.0.0.0 0.255.255.255 0.0.0.1 255.255.255.254As a side-note , you may even be able to do per-packet balancing on outbound .
Some ISPs will do uRPF , an anti-spoofing measure that prevents you from sourcing traffic from IPs that are n't routed back to the connection your ISP receives them on .
Some ISP 's do n't.Otherwise , you can policy-route the outbound traffic.I 'm sure you could whip up a similar config using unix packet filter of choice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you want to enhance single-flow performance, then MLPPP or round-robin per-packet balancing is what you'd want, but would require the cooperation of your ISP.
This isn't possible with multiple ISPs.Alternatively, if you were trying to enhance performance between home and $job, or just wanted to steal bandwidth from $employer, then you could plop down a device at the office, then build a tunnel to it over each ISP connection, and then balance your traffic over those tunnels, likely at the expense of god awful latency and jitter.If single-flow performance imüprovement isn't on the agenda, but aggregate improvement is (i.e.
to improve peer-to-peer download), then you could run through a PAT device that would source traffic from IP#1, IP#2, ... and then shoot it down Connection#1, #2, ...       This would be like server load balancing in reverse.
I can't think of an app or device that would do this, but it would be pretty easy.
You could probably do this with a cheap-o Cisco router with one ethernet/vlan to ISP#1, one to ISP#2, and one to Inside network, and then have two PAT configs tied into an extended ACL matching on destination traffic, and tell it to break out the traffic between the two PAT configs based on a wildcard match of 1/0 of the last bit in the IP (i.e.
even/odd).    I've used a similar config to balance many inside hosts in a pinch to many outside cheap ISP connections.
I.e. last bits = 00, you get upstream#1 PAT,  last bits = 01, you get upstream#2,  last bits = 10, you get upstream #3, ...int Fa0.1
  desc Inside
  ip addr 10.42.42.42 255.0.0.0
  encaps dot1q 1 native
  ip nat insideint Fa0.100
  desc isp#1
  encaps dot1q 100
  ip nat outside
  ip addr dhcpint Fa0/0.101
  desc isp#2
  encaps dot1q 101
  ip nat outside
  ip addr dhcpip nat inside source list 100 int Fa0.100 overloadip nat inside source list 101 int Fa0.101 overloadaccess-list 100 permit ip 10.0.0.0 0.255.255.255 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.254accessölist 101 permit ip 10.0.0.0 0.255.255.255 0.0.0.1 255.255.255.254As a side-note, you may even be able to do per-packet balancing on outbound.
Some ISPs will do uRPF, an anti-spoofing measure that prevents you from sourcing traffic from IPs that aren't routed back to the connection your ISP receives them on.
Some ISP's don't.Otherwise, you can policy-route the outbound traffic.I'm sure you could whip up a similar config using unix packet filter of choice.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29767163</id>
	<title>linux can do it.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255696320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have pulled that off with linux routing 2 different ways.</p><p>At home, I played with 2 network connections, my cable modem and someone elses via a wireless bridge. There was a way to do round robin gateway choosing. I could sit there with a browser open to a site that shows what your IP is, and hit refresh and watch it randomly pick on or the other IP. This was helpful for bittorent type protocols where I was connecting to multiple locations as it started to share the load. Maybe not very level due to length of time some connections might have been open, but it was simple.</p><p>At work, we had cable and DSL for redundant connections. We set up a linux router that specified all data incoming on one IP range went out the DSL, and all other data went out the cable link. These ranges still used the same gateway IP address. On our workstations, we could set up our machines to be on both the cable and DSL ranges. We would then use source NAT rules to route types of traffic out as which ever IP range we wanted, or even choose to round robin the outbound IP so we could spread it out.</p><p>Being as you can pull off both of these options with linux and iproute2 and the firewall, you can build any box you can stuff 3 or more network interfaces in, and have this just work after a little bit of research.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have pulled that off with linux routing 2 different ways.At home , I played with 2 network connections , my cable modem and someone elses via a wireless bridge .
There was a way to do round robin gateway choosing .
I could sit there with a browser open to a site that shows what your IP is , and hit refresh and watch it randomly pick on or the other IP .
This was helpful for bittorent type protocols where I was connecting to multiple locations as it started to share the load .
Maybe not very level due to length of time some connections might have been open , but it was simple.At work , we had cable and DSL for redundant connections .
We set up a linux router that specified all data incoming on one IP range went out the DSL , and all other data went out the cable link .
These ranges still used the same gateway IP address .
On our workstations , we could set up our machines to be on both the cable and DSL ranges .
We would then use source NAT rules to route types of traffic out as which ever IP range we wanted , or even choose to round robin the outbound IP so we could spread it out.Being as you can pull off both of these options with linux and iproute2 and the firewall , you can build any box you can stuff 3 or more network interfaces in , and have this just work after a little bit of research .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have pulled that off with linux routing 2 different ways.At home, I played with 2 network connections, my cable modem and someone elses via a wireless bridge.
There was a way to do round robin gateway choosing.
I could sit there with a browser open to a site that shows what your IP is, and hit refresh and watch it randomly pick on or the other IP.
This was helpful for bittorent type protocols where I was connecting to multiple locations as it started to share the load.
Maybe not very level due to length of time some connections might have been open, but it was simple.At work, we had cable and DSL for redundant connections.
We set up a linux router that specified all data incoming on one IP range went out the DSL, and all other data went out the cable link.
These ranges still used the same gateway IP address.
On our workstations, we could set up our machines to be on both the cable and DSL ranges.
We would then use source NAT rules to route types of traffic out as which ever IP range we wanted, or even choose to round robin the outbound IP so we could spread it out.Being as you can pull off both of these options with linux and iproute2 and the firewall, you can build any box you can stuff 3 or more network interfaces in, and have this just work after a little bit of research.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29768821</id>
	<title>T1 bonding</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255708800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My ISP is doing so with Zhone TNE devices, pretty cheaply too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My ISP is doing so with Zhone TNE devices , pretty cheaply too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My ISP is doing so with Zhone TNE devices, pretty cheaply too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29764129</id>
	<title>printers/newpapers</title>
	<author>shareme</author>
	<datestamp>1255609500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Your local newspaper or medium sized printer will have such a setup. Buy their IT staff diner to get the information..</htmltext>
<tokenext>Your local newspaper or medium sized printer will have such a setup .
Buy their IT staff diner to get the information. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your local newspaper or medium sized printer will have such a setup.
Buy their IT staff diner to get the information..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29764305</id>
	<title>Re:tomato</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255610940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Only works if you've got DSL, and then again only if they use PPPoE. Then the remote DSLAM needs to support mlppp as well.</p><p>I would suggest OpenBSD + PF and just load balance the connections using PF. Takes all of 10 lines of code to get it up and going and is well documented. This won't aggregate your bandwidth, however if you have multiple streams open, it'll bounce those between two or more connections. I've personally done 4 lines like this (2x adsl2+ and 2x DOCSIS 2) and hit about 95\% utilization across all lines.</p><p>Also with PF, both lines don't need to be the same speed, or even with the same provider, which gives you some additional fault tolerance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Only works if you 've got DSL , and then again only if they use PPPoE .
Then the remote DSLAM needs to support mlppp as well.I would suggest OpenBSD + PF and just load balance the connections using PF .
Takes all of 10 lines of code to get it up and going and is well documented .
This wo n't aggregate your bandwidth , however if you have multiple streams open , it 'll bounce those between two or more connections .
I 've personally done 4 lines like this ( 2x adsl2 + and 2x DOCSIS 2 ) and hit about 95 \ % utilization across all lines.Also with PF , both lines do n't need to be the same speed , or even with the same provider , which gives you some additional fault tolerance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Only works if you've got DSL, and then again only if they use PPPoE.
Then the remote DSLAM needs to support mlppp as well.I would suggest OpenBSD + PF and just load balance the connections using PF.
Takes all of 10 lines of code to get it up and going and is well documented.
This won't aggregate your bandwidth, however if you have multiple streams open, it'll bounce those between two or more connections.
I've personally done 4 lines like this (2x adsl2+ and 2x DOCSIS 2) and hit about 95\% utilization across all lines.Also with PF, both lines don't need to be the same speed, or even with the same provider, which gives you some additional fault tolerance.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29764033</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29766339</id>
	<title>Re:Pering</title>
	<author>lamapper</author>
	<datestamp>1255724700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Its long, at least read about Greenlight in N.C. and learn!

</p><p>I am 100\% positive you could do this with hardware that will run the DD-WRT, here is a <a href="http://www.dd-wrt.com/wiki/index.php/Supported\_Devices" title="dd-wrt.com">list of DD-WRT supported devices</a> [dd-wrt.com], they have a search link, but I find that it does not work very well if you do not know the name of the router / firewall that you are looking for.  So use the list and find a supported device.

</p><p>You would need two of them and two different providers.  You could even get a third one and do some special VLAN stuff to put some ports on all three on the same virtual network., many options.

</p><p>These devices are very light weight, therefore shipping is next to nothing.  The Linksys WRT54Gs' were great routers for the DD-WRT software. Costing over $75 when they first came out, dropping to $69 for years and finally hitting $15 or $30 when the stores were unloading them to bring in the new Linksys routers (<i>none of which will support the DD-WRT software, except one that runs Linux</i>).  NOTE: there are BETTER routers than the WRT54G to run this software.  The WRT54G will ONLY run the Micro version of the software.  Do yourself a favor and get one that will run the Mega version of the software!  (<i>They cost less than $100 per and well worth the price.</i>)

</p><p>Linksys (Cisco) begin removing DD-WRT compatible firewall/routers from store shelves, replacing them with devices that are NOT compatible with the DD-WRT software in 2007/2008.

</p><p>Get two DSL lines ($13 - $19 each), add in a NAT and a couple of these routers, probably need to do some secure tunneling to avoid the DNS of the Cable / DSL Companies and voila you are good to go.  Your DSL speed will vary based on distance, but even far away you can get 1.5MB down and 384Kbps up.  If closer you can get 3Mb down and 768Kbps up.  (<i>That is faster than 98\% of Americans with Cable Modems because of throttling of service by Cable providers.</i>)</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Could you run the second DSL upstream over the first one? Thus saving the cost of a second telephone line, you would lose the redundancy that two telephones would provide, but save around $13 per month on a second phone line...probably better just to get the two lines, you total cost of ownership (TCO) will still be less than $60 per month and you will have redundancy.  If one service gets stupid and starts throttling, drop them and get a different one.  Politicians help us if they all throttle!</p></div><p>Solves allot of problems related to Cable companies throttling back service if you can create a secure VPN that their Deep Packet Inspection and/or Bandwidth shaping (<i>throttling</i>) service might have a harder time restricting (<i>throttling</i>).  Granted they would still throttle you back by your IP address or MAC address of Cable Modem.  Again, they do that now anyway.

</p><p>A friend of mine was pissed that he was throttled back to less than 100K down and 0K up 85 - 95\% of the time.  He went on and paid his cable company the $10 burst / protection racket money / "give me a little more of what I am already paying for money" extra fee.  Keep in mind that they were promising up to 8MP and delivering less from day one.  He said he got a letter in the mail that they would be rolling out a new service in his area, the day after they started using that service, his bandwidth was throttled to next to nothing. (0 Kbps upstream, consistently less than 20Kbps).  (<i>There were 1 GB, 2GB and 3 GB ~ 1 second spikes ONLY, unless he was downloading a Linux distro, then he got 3GB - 4GB sustained with a 1 sec 6GB spike</i>)  He is convinced that they throttle him back because he uses Skype VoIP service (uses P2P packets) in a vain attempt to get him to switch to the Cable companies VoIP service.  At less than $100 per year, Skype blows away any telco/Cable company offering.

</p><p>Guess what his speed was after the switch over....Yep less than 100K (down) and 40K upstream 95\% of the time.  When he is throttled back to 0Kbps like I am, the videos sputter, gMail, twitter, Facebook and MySpace will not load because of the little extra bandwidth required for the skins and CSS markup language.

</p><p>Note to Social Media sites, you guys should be SCREAMING, when throttled to less than 20Kbps (upstream), your websites simply WILL NOT LOAD!  You know it is bad when gMail will not load as it is efficiently coded, better than many.  Digg and Stumbleupon are simply NOT usable or aggrevating slow when the upstream bandwidth is throttled to less than 40Kbps, what extra CSS crap is slowing those two down so much more than everyone else is anyone's guess.  The reality is that I avoid either Digg or Stumbleupon because of TWC's throttling of my bandwidth.  They are painfully slow over my broadband (<i>cough, cough, sputter, what a joke</i>) provider.

</p><p>At first, after paying the $10 protection racket fee for "burst" mode, he was NOT throttled below 20Kbps up, however after a few hours of watching Hulu, (<i>yes after only a few hours with the new better, faster, more bandwidth service</i>) he was once again throttled back to 0Kbps upstream.  The Hulu did play faster while he was getting over 30Kbps  up.   Guess the Cable company wants their cake and to eat it too.  Their bandwidth shaping software could easily see that he is watching/using an Internet IP TV service.  Obviously if you can get your content from ABC, NBC, CBS, SciFi, Hulu, Boxee (<i>there are many, many more</i>) via the Internet, via TCP/IP, you do NOT need TV via cable at all.  They most certainly do not like that!  Get a new HD TV and an a "power" UHF Antenna and you get all the local channels over the air for FREE anyway.  Add an Internet connection with at least 100Kbps upstream and you are good to go!

</p><p>That is my long term plan...after 20+ years of being screwed by the Cable TV companies (somewhat by the telcos) I am fed enough to hold a grudge for life.  Tell my kids.  Tell my grandkids, perhaps even dis-inherit any family member that gives the Cable Company business if there is a non-cable provider serving their area.  If you do not get it, I am pissed, you should be too!</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I hope many more people see this for what it is, anti-American, a burden to job creation and a future for our children; hold a grudge and VOW never to give the Cable companies business as soon as you have a viable alternative/option.  Should they get disparate and finally after 20+ years decided to honor their 20+ year old promises and start providing fiber ~ tell them to stick it!  (<i>honestly they have had over 20 years, there is no excuse, especially cost of fiber as they have gotten and spent more than it would have cost in lobbyist money...$1.8 million per week would lay allot of fiber.</i>)  If enough people get pissed and leave all Cable options for Internet access, eventually they would be FORCED to change their ways.  Thus the sheep that stay with them and the consumers that honestly do NOT have another option, would finally benefit.  Our elected officials are very aptly paid off by telco/cable lobbyists.  So there will never be government interdiction that is desperately needed.  We should have had that with the Telecommunications Act of 1996, but it was effectively watered down and made un-enforceable.</p></div><p>Now they assume you are STUCK without a CHOICE and many are in monopoly markets.  In larger markets it is not much better, as you still need a telephone line from one of the telcos for DSL.  That will set you back from $7.95 to $13 per month in addition to the DSL fee.  However that is still less than $30 per month.  Thanks for nothing AT&amp;T, best reason ever to give your business to DSL eXtreme instead of AT&amp;T.  They should charge less than $5.00 per month for the phone line...it literally costs them nothing once its in the ground.  Same with Fiber as the Japanese have stated publicly.  Costs them less than<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.50 cents to provide 2GB of bandwidth!</p><p>But you have to admit that these speeds (With the DD-WRT software you will see your WAN, LAN and WiFi related bandwidth upstream / downstream IN REAL TIME!  No more BS, you KNOW what you are getting.

</p><p>This capability among others is simply not available with any non DD-WRT routers off the big box store shelves. You can see it with commercial routers costing allot more.  Do not waste your money!  If you are not running a firewall/router with the DD-WRT software you really do NOT know what your bandwidth is?  Speed tests are not throttled, duh!

</p><p>BTW, his speed test was over 9000K down and over 900K up; the speed tests must be allowed to go unthrottled.  The DD-WRT software showed this along with the Speedtest site.  So that proves the DD-WRT capable routers are not limited by their processor or memory to get higher bandwidths.  Any of us who have used a network sniffer to see Internet / network packets understand why this is true.  And the DD-WRT software will let you use both IPTables and VLANS!  Woot woot!

</p><p>My friend was going to give them another month, complain a few times to see if they would open up his pipe or not.  The extra $10 per month he is paying is suppose to get him up to 14MB down and 2MB up.  So far based on his DD-WRT monitoring it has all been a lie!  He made some screen captures as proof.

</p><p>Note that on many forums, people had been paying the extra "burst" (mob racket) fee for months and only started getting more bandwidth after complaining to the company.  The cable company flips some software switch at the office and voila, the person paying the protection-racket $10 fee gets better bandwidth.  Better but still not above the FCC definition upstream, especially not for sustained periods.  What a rip off.

</p><p>My friend realizes that he would be better off with a guaranteed 1.5 MB down and 384Kbps up that he would get with DSL over the lies of up to 8MB (or 14MB) down and 900K (or 2MB) up.  He has determined based on this experience that it is the upstream bandwidth that hits the home user the most.  You get a steady 40K or 100K upstream and your video will not skip, falter, pause at all.  Plug a cable into a HD TV and Voila, great TV via the Internet.

</p><p>Which begs the question, should an ISP (<i>especially cable companies</i>) be able to advertise broadband if they throttle back your bandwidth to below the current FCC definition of 768Kbps?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Forget that the definition is 9 years out of date and should be at least 100MB / 100MB (<i>doable with Fiber by 2000</i>) or should be 1 GB / 1GB (<i>doable with Fiber by 2006</i>)!  Hey FCC are you even paying attention.  We know our politicians are receiving $1.8 Million per week to look the other way.  What is the FCC's excuse?  The Cable companies and telcos <b>received over $200 Billion</b> (tax money, additional taxes, additional fees) for the <b>promise of FIBER</b> <b>since</b> the <b>1990s</b>.</p></div><p>Think the Wendy's where's the beef commercial of the 80s.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>WHERE'S THE FIBER?</p></div><p>I like my friend's quote and share it with you now freely:</p><p><div class="quote"><p> <b>Give me Fiber or give me death!</b></p> </div><p>Interesting side note: Only one company we have ever heard of dared to buck the cable / telco oligopoly and offer Fiber to Americans.  And it was after those same companies (1) refused to serve the community and (2) the local politicians invited them in to offer Fiber.  (<i>They are protecting their families and their families' families by doing this, do your local politicians protect you?</i>)

</p><p> <b>Greenlight</b>, invited by the locals, came into <b>Wilson N.C.</b> and started putting <b>Fiber to people's homes</b>.  (I have no idea if the entire community has fiber or not yet, but many of them do)  Guess what they are paying for <b>100Mbps / 100Mbps</b> fiber connection to the Internet.  Less than any other provider in the USA, <b>$100 per month</b>.  (<i>btw FIOS charges $119 for 50MB / 5 MB.</i>)

</p><p>I most certainly would pay $100 per month for 100MB / 100MB synchronous bandwidth over FIBER (<i>not cable, not DSL, only FIBER</i>) that given the last two decades reluctance of American Telco/Cable Cos to give Americans the fiber infrastructure that is desperately needed to create jobs in a global economy!  They promised Americans Fiber back in the 90s and still they do not honor their promise to Americans.  Their actions speak volumes, it yells for government regulation. (<i>as they control the market</i>)

</p><p>Here is the rub: <b>After refusing to provide service</b> to Wilson N.C. and <b>after Greenlight started providing service via Fiber</b>, the <b>Telcos and Cable companies</b> responded by attempting to pass through the North Carolina <b> (used the)</b> state <b>legislature</b> rules, regulations and laws <b>to prevent Greenlight and/or other companies</b> from providing fiber or higher bandwidth service to the citizens of North Carolina.  It is my understanding that the issues will be brought up when the N.C. State legislature meets in the next session.

</p><p>What is happening in North Carolina is exactly what is happening in Washington D.C.  (<i>this is what they spend $1.8 Million per week on sheeple</i>) This is what Net Neutrality is partially about.  From your home, you MUST NOT be throttled (<i>censored</i>) from getting higher bandwidth and Internet speed, not because they can not provide it (<i>there are multiple articles factually proving that they can provide more</i>) but because they will NOT provide it (<i>unless you pay more</i>).

</p><p>And even when you pay more for it, you will still DO NOT GET IT.  That is what bandwidth shaping is all about.  It just feels like you are getting more because they throttle you less, especially your upstream bandwidth!

</p><p>They say they are NOT THROTTLING!  Okay so they call it Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) or Bandwidth Shaping or Quality of Service (QoS); whatever.  If you are not getting at least 768K (and you ARE NOT if you are with a Cable Company (<i>you just do not know it</i>), no matter what the speed test says; the speed test is not throttled, duh moment there you are NOT GETTING BROADBAND.

</p><p>Thus the Cable Companies specifically are committing FRAUD!  Probably to 100\% of their customers, definitely TO OVER 90\% of their customers.  Speed tests do NOT show this!

</p><p>If you do not have a device running the DD-WRT software, you simply are NOT seeing the TRUTH!  And the truth is out there!

</p><p>Note: The DD-WRT software gives a residential router/firewall costing less than $100 the capabilities of a $600 to $1000 plus commercial router!  Do your self a favor and find out the truth about your bandwidth, Purchase a Firewall/Router (hardware) that is capable of running the DD-WRT (free) software and start watching your bandwidth!  You see it in REAL TIME, 24 X 7!  The cable company can NOT lie to you anymore.  And they do try, I call them on it every time.  As soon as the call comes in, or I make a call, I switch to the screen running the DD-WRT status / bandwidth for WAN, LAN and WiFi.  I know exactly what is going on and I let the representative know it as I am talking to them.  You should too, your paying for bandwidth, probably close to $50 or more, YOU DO DESERVE what you are ALREADY PAYING FOR!

</p><p>The last cable representative that called was trying to get me to upgrade my service.  I explained the bandwidth throttling going on right then, as I was speaking to them, and told them that if they wanted to get more of my money for additional services, they needed to first give me the service I am already paying for.  I do not get mad, I do not yell (<i>though the excitement is evident in my tone</i>) I state matter of factly why I will not consider upgrading at this time.  And I tell them what set of circumstances, steps their company can take, that will get me to change my mind.  In fact if you will do it, tell them you will churn if they do not fix it.  Just make sure you do your research first as you might not have any options in your area like some of us do.  If you do not have options, tell your politicians!  As for me I have options, they know what the problem is now.  I have told them it is in their system, if they choose to ignore me (<i>as I expect them to</i>) than they have made a business decision that they do not need my business and I will CHURN (<i>telco term for a customer that is going to leave...they pay thousands of dollars for systems to predict churn, just so they can offer a customer incentives not to churn.  You see it costs them more to acquire a new customer than it does to keep an existing customer, thus paying hundreds of dollars for a system, churn alert, to predict churn can actually save them money.  And that is exactly how such a system is marketed to them.  Do not let people tell you it will not matter if you leave them as that is exactly what those of us with options must do to effect change for those without options.</i>) And that is exactly what I am planning to do, because they honestly do NOT care about any of us.  Sad but true.  At least I will have better upstream bandwidth with the DSL provider and that will ensure a steady TV/Video signal.  Perhaps I will be able to use digg and stumbleupon again, who knows.  But I will be BETTER OFF than I was with Cable!

</p><p>However, sometime in the future, when viable fiber alternatives are available, as their customer base continues to shrink (<i>and it will</i>) they will start caring again, but it will be too little, too late.  At that point in time I will tell them to shove it!  They had their chance between the 1990s and today to do right by consumers, but they made a business decision to screw over Americans.  And that can NEVER be forgiven.  If you forgive without a track record of changes in their actions, over years, you basically are telling them they can do it to you again at any time.  No without years of actions, they MUST not be allowed to win back your TRUST!  Make them EARN back your TRUST over years.  Until they do, do not give them your hard earned money.

</p><p>We all know corporations simply do NOT care.  There is only one way to make them care, with your $$$.  It must become extremely expensive for them to screw over one of us for all of us to be safe.  Do not do it for me, perhaps not even for your neighbors. at least do it for your family, for your kids and for their kids!  They are in your monkeysphere, even if the rest of us are not!

</p><p>Take up the cry with us, <b>"Give me fiber or give me death!"</b></p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Its long , at least read about Greenlight in N.C. and learn !
I am 100 \ % positive you could do this with hardware that will run the DD-WRT , here is a list of DD-WRT supported devices [ dd-wrt.com ] , they have a search link , but I find that it does not work very well if you do not know the name of the router / firewall that you are looking for .
So use the list and find a supported device .
You would need two of them and two different providers .
You could even get a third one and do some special VLAN stuff to put some ports on all three on the same virtual network. , many options .
These devices are very light weight , therefore shipping is next to nothing .
The Linksys WRT54Gs ' were great routers for the DD-WRT software .
Costing over $ 75 when they first came out , dropping to $ 69 for years and finally hitting $ 15 or $ 30 when the stores were unloading them to bring in the new Linksys routers ( none of which will support the DD-WRT software , except one that runs Linux ) .
NOTE : there are BETTER routers than the WRT54G to run this software .
The WRT54G will ONLY run the Micro version of the software .
Do yourself a favor and get one that will run the Mega version of the software !
( They cost less than $ 100 per and well worth the price .
) Linksys ( Cisco ) begin removing DD-WRT compatible firewall/routers from store shelves , replacing them with devices that are NOT compatible with the DD-WRT software in 2007/2008 .
Get two DSL lines ( $ 13 - $ 19 each ) , add in a NAT and a couple of these routers , probably need to do some secure tunneling to avoid the DNS of the Cable / DSL Companies and voila you are good to go .
Your DSL speed will vary based on distance , but even far away you can get 1.5MB down and 384Kbps up .
If closer you can get 3Mb down and 768Kbps up .
( That is faster than 98 \ % of Americans with Cable Modems because of throttling of service by Cable providers .
) Could you run the second DSL upstream over the first one ?
Thus saving the cost of a second telephone line , you would lose the redundancy that two telephones would provide , but save around $ 13 per month on a second phone line...probably better just to get the two lines , you total cost of ownership ( TCO ) will still be less than $ 60 per month and you will have redundancy .
If one service gets stupid and starts throttling , drop them and get a different one .
Politicians help us if they all throttle ! Solves allot of problems related to Cable companies throttling back service if you can create a secure VPN that their Deep Packet Inspection and/or Bandwidth shaping ( throttling ) service might have a harder time restricting ( throttling ) .
Granted they would still throttle you back by your IP address or MAC address of Cable Modem .
Again , they do that now anyway .
A friend of mine was pissed that he was throttled back to less than 100K down and 0K up 85 - 95 \ % of the time .
He went on and paid his cable company the $ 10 burst / protection racket money / " give me a little more of what I am already paying for money " extra fee .
Keep in mind that they were promising up to 8MP and delivering less from day one .
He said he got a letter in the mail that they would be rolling out a new service in his area , the day after they started using that service , his bandwidth was throttled to next to nothing .
( 0 Kbps upstream , consistently less than 20Kbps ) .
( There were 1 GB , 2GB and 3 GB ~ 1 second spikes ONLY , unless he was downloading a Linux distro , then he got 3GB - 4GB sustained with a 1 sec 6GB spike ) He is convinced that they throttle him back because he uses Skype VoIP service ( uses P2P packets ) in a vain attempt to get him to switch to the Cable companies VoIP service .
At less than $ 100 per year , Skype blows away any telco/Cable company offering .
Guess what his speed was after the switch over....Yep less than 100K ( down ) and 40K upstream 95 \ % of the time .
When he is throttled back to 0Kbps like I am , the videos sputter , gMail , twitter , Facebook and MySpace will not load because of the little extra bandwidth required for the skins and CSS markup language .
Note to Social Media sites , you guys should be SCREAMING , when throttled to less than 20Kbps ( upstream ) , your websites simply WILL NOT LOAD !
You know it is bad when gMail will not load as it is efficiently coded , better than many .
Digg and Stumbleupon are simply NOT usable or aggrevating slow when the upstream bandwidth is throttled to less than 40Kbps , what extra CSS crap is slowing those two down so much more than everyone else is anyone 's guess .
The reality is that I avoid either Digg or Stumbleupon because of TWC 's throttling of my bandwidth .
They are painfully slow over my broadband ( cough , cough , sputter , what a joke ) provider .
At first , after paying the $ 10 protection racket fee for " burst " mode , he was NOT throttled below 20Kbps up , however after a few hours of watching Hulu , ( yes after only a few hours with the new better , faster , more bandwidth service ) he was once again throttled back to 0Kbps upstream .
The Hulu did play faster while he was getting over 30Kbps up .
Guess the Cable company wants their cake and to eat it too .
Their bandwidth shaping software could easily see that he is watching/using an Internet IP TV service .
Obviously if you can get your content from ABC , NBC , CBS , SciFi , Hulu , Boxee ( there are many , many more ) via the Internet , via TCP/IP , you do NOT need TV via cable at all .
They most certainly do not like that !
Get a new HD TV and an a " power " UHF Antenna and you get all the local channels over the air for FREE anyway .
Add an Internet connection with at least 100Kbps upstream and you are good to go !
That is my long term plan...after 20 + years of being screwed by the Cable TV companies ( somewhat by the telcos ) I am fed enough to hold a grudge for life .
Tell my kids .
Tell my grandkids , perhaps even dis-inherit any family member that gives the Cable Company business if there is a non-cable provider serving their area .
If you do not get it , I am pissed , you should be too ! I hope many more people see this for what it is , anti-American , a burden to job creation and a future for our children ; hold a grudge and VOW never to give the Cable companies business as soon as you have a viable alternative/option .
Should they get disparate and finally after 20 + years decided to honor their 20 + year old promises and start providing fiber ~ tell them to stick it !
( honestly they have had over 20 years , there is no excuse , especially cost of fiber as they have gotten and spent more than it would have cost in lobbyist money... $ 1.8 million per week would lay allot of fiber .
) If enough people get pissed and leave all Cable options for Internet access , eventually they would be FORCED to change their ways .
Thus the sheep that stay with them and the consumers that honestly do NOT have another option , would finally benefit .
Our elected officials are very aptly paid off by telco/cable lobbyists .
So there will never be government interdiction that is desperately needed .
We should have had that with the Telecommunications Act of 1996 , but it was effectively watered down and made un-enforceable.Now they assume you are STUCK without a CHOICE and many are in monopoly markets .
In larger markets it is not much better , as you still need a telephone line from one of the telcos for DSL .
That will set you back from $ 7.95 to $ 13 per month in addition to the DSL fee .
However that is still less than $ 30 per month .
Thanks for nothing AT&amp;T , best reason ever to give your business to DSL eXtreme instead of AT&amp;T .
They should charge less than $ 5.00 per month for the phone line...it literally costs them nothing once its in the ground .
Same with Fiber as the Japanese have stated publicly .
Costs them less than .50 cents to provide 2GB of bandwidth ! But you have to admit that these speeds ( With the DD-WRT software you will see your WAN , LAN and WiFi related bandwidth upstream / downstream IN REAL TIME !
No more BS , you KNOW what you are getting .
This capability among others is simply not available with any non DD-WRT routers off the big box store shelves .
You can see it with commercial routers costing allot more .
Do not waste your money !
If you are not running a firewall/router with the DD-WRT software you really do NOT know what your bandwidth is ?
Speed tests are not throttled , duh !
BTW , his speed test was over 9000K down and over 900K up ; the speed tests must be allowed to go unthrottled .
The DD-WRT software showed this along with the Speedtest site .
So that proves the DD-WRT capable routers are not limited by their processor or memory to get higher bandwidths .
Any of us who have used a network sniffer to see Internet / network packets understand why this is true .
And the DD-WRT software will let you use both IPTables and VLANS !
Woot woot !
My friend was going to give them another month , complain a few times to see if they would open up his pipe or not .
The extra $ 10 per month he is paying is suppose to get him up to 14MB down and 2MB up .
So far based on his DD-WRT monitoring it has all been a lie !
He made some screen captures as proof .
Note that on many forums , people had been paying the extra " burst " ( mob racket ) fee for months and only started getting more bandwidth after complaining to the company .
The cable company flips some software switch at the office and voila , the person paying the protection-racket $ 10 fee gets better bandwidth .
Better but still not above the FCC definition upstream , especially not for sustained periods .
What a rip off .
My friend realizes that he would be better off with a guaranteed 1.5 MB down and 384Kbps up that he would get with DSL over the lies of up to 8MB ( or 14MB ) down and 900K ( or 2MB ) up .
He has determined based on this experience that it is the upstream bandwidth that hits the home user the most .
You get a steady 40K or 100K upstream and your video will not skip , falter , pause at all .
Plug a cable into a HD TV and Voila , great TV via the Internet .
Which begs the question , should an ISP ( especially cable companies ) be able to advertise broadband if they throttle back your bandwidth to below the current FCC definition of 768Kbps ? Forget that the definition is 9 years out of date and should be at least 100MB / 100MB ( doable with Fiber by 2000 ) or should be 1 GB / 1GB ( doable with Fiber by 2006 ) !
Hey FCC are you even paying attention .
We know our politicians are receiving $ 1.8 Million per week to look the other way .
What is the FCC 's excuse ?
The Cable companies and telcos received over $ 200 Billion ( tax money , additional taxes , additional fees ) for the promise of FIBER since the 1990s.Think the Wendy 's where 's the beef commercial of the 80s.WHERE 'S THE FIBER ? I like my friend 's quote and share it with you now freely : Give me Fiber or give me death !
Interesting side note : Only one company we have ever heard of dared to buck the cable / telco oligopoly and offer Fiber to Americans .
And it was after those same companies ( 1 ) refused to serve the community and ( 2 ) the local politicians invited them in to offer Fiber .
( They are protecting their families and their families ' families by doing this , do your local politicians protect you ?
) Greenlight , invited by the locals , came into Wilson N.C. and started putting Fiber to people 's homes .
( I have no idea if the entire community has fiber or not yet , but many of them do ) Guess what they are paying for 100Mbps / 100Mbps fiber connection to the Internet .
Less than any other provider in the USA , $ 100 per month .
( btw FIOS charges $ 119 for 50MB / 5 MB .
) I most certainly would pay $ 100 per month for 100MB / 100MB synchronous bandwidth over FIBER ( not cable , not DSL , only FIBER ) that given the last two decades reluctance of American Telco/Cable Cos to give Americans the fiber infrastructure that is desperately needed to create jobs in a global economy !
They promised Americans Fiber back in the 90s and still they do not honor their promise to Americans .
Their actions speak volumes , it yells for government regulation .
( as they control the market ) Here is the rub : After refusing to provide service to Wilson N.C. and after Greenlight started providing service via Fiber , the Telcos and Cable companies responded by attempting to pass through the North Carolina ( used the ) state legislature rules , regulations and laws to prevent Greenlight and/or other companies from providing fiber or higher bandwidth service to the citizens of North Carolina .
It is my understanding that the issues will be brought up when the N.C. State legislature meets in the next session .
What is happening in North Carolina is exactly what is happening in Washington D.C. ( this is what they spend $ 1.8 Million per week on sheeple ) This is what Net Neutrality is partially about .
From your home , you MUST NOT be throttled ( censored ) from getting higher bandwidth and Internet speed , not because they can not provide it ( there are multiple articles factually proving that they can provide more ) but because they will NOT provide it ( unless you pay more ) .
And even when you pay more for it , you will still DO NOT GET IT .
That is what bandwidth shaping is all about .
It just feels like you are getting more because they throttle you less , especially your upstream bandwidth !
They say they are NOT THROTTLING !
Okay so they call it Deep Packet Inspection ( DPI ) or Bandwidth Shaping or Quality of Service ( QoS ) ; whatever .
If you are not getting at least 768K ( and you ARE NOT if you are with a Cable Company ( you just do not know it ) , no matter what the speed test says ; the speed test is not throttled , duh moment there you are NOT GETTING BROADBAND .
Thus the Cable Companies specifically are committing FRAUD !
Probably to 100 \ % of their customers , definitely TO OVER 90 \ % of their customers .
Speed tests do NOT show this !
If you do not have a device running the DD-WRT software , you simply are NOT seeing the TRUTH !
And the truth is out there !
Note : The DD-WRT software gives a residential router/firewall costing less than $ 100 the capabilities of a $ 600 to $ 1000 plus commercial router !
Do your self a favor and find out the truth about your bandwidth , Purchase a Firewall/Router ( hardware ) that is capable of running the DD-WRT ( free ) software and start watching your bandwidth !
You see it in REAL TIME , 24 X 7 !
The cable company can NOT lie to you anymore .
And they do try , I call them on it every time .
As soon as the call comes in , or I make a call , I switch to the screen running the DD-WRT status / bandwidth for WAN , LAN and WiFi .
I know exactly what is going on and I let the representative know it as I am talking to them .
You should too , your paying for bandwidth , probably close to $ 50 or more , YOU DO DESERVE what you are ALREADY PAYING FOR !
The last cable representative that called was trying to get me to upgrade my service .
I explained the bandwidth throttling going on right then , as I was speaking to them , and told them that if they wanted to get more of my money for additional services , they needed to first give me the service I am already paying for .
I do not get mad , I do not yell ( though the excitement is evident in my tone ) I state matter of factly why I will not consider upgrading at this time .
And I tell them what set of circumstances , steps their company can take , that will get me to change my mind .
In fact if you will do it , tell them you will churn if they do not fix it .
Just make sure you do your research first as you might not have any options in your area like some of us do .
If you do not have options , tell your politicians !
As for me I have options , they know what the problem is now .
I have told them it is in their system , if they choose to ignore me ( as I expect them to ) than they have made a business decision that they do not need my business and I will CHURN ( telco term for a customer that is going to leave...they pay thousands of dollars for systems to predict churn , just so they can offer a customer incentives not to churn .
You see it costs them more to acquire a new customer than it does to keep an existing customer , thus paying hundreds of dollars for a system , churn alert , to predict churn can actually save them money .
And that is exactly how such a system is marketed to them .
Do not let people tell you it will not matter if you leave them as that is exactly what those of us with options must do to effect change for those without options .
) And that is exactly what I am planning to do , because they honestly do NOT care about any of us .
Sad but true .
At least I will have better upstream bandwidth with the DSL provider and that will ensure a steady TV/Video signal .
Perhaps I will be able to use digg and stumbleupon again , who knows .
But I will be BETTER OFF than I was with Cable !
However , sometime in the future , when viable fiber alternatives are available , as their customer base continues to shrink ( and it will ) they will start caring again , but it will be too little , too late .
At that point in time I will tell them to shove it !
They had their chance between the 1990s and today to do right by consumers , but they made a business decision to screw over Americans .
And that can NEVER be forgiven .
If you forgive without a track record of changes in their actions , over years , you basically are telling them they can do it to you again at any time .
No without years of actions , they MUST not be allowed to win back your TRUST !
Make them EARN back your TRUST over years .
Until they do , do not give them your hard earned money .
We all know corporations simply do NOT care .
There is only one way to make them care , with your $ $ $ .
It must become extremely expensive for them to screw over one of us for all of us to be safe .
Do not do it for me , perhaps not even for your neighbors .
at least do it for your family , for your kids and for their kids !
They are in your monkeysphere , even if the rest of us are not !
Take up the cry with us , " Give me fiber or give me death !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its long, at least read about Greenlight in N.C. and learn!
I am 100\% positive you could do this with hardware that will run the DD-WRT, here is a list of DD-WRT supported devices [dd-wrt.com], they have a search link, but I find that it does not work very well if you do not know the name of the router / firewall that you are looking for.
So use the list and find a supported device.
You would need two of them and two different providers.
You could even get a third one and do some special VLAN stuff to put some ports on all three on the same virtual network., many options.
These devices are very light weight, therefore shipping is next to nothing.
The Linksys WRT54Gs' were great routers for the DD-WRT software.
Costing over $75 when they first came out, dropping to $69 for years and finally hitting $15 or $30 when the stores were unloading them to bring in the new Linksys routers (none of which will support the DD-WRT software, except one that runs Linux).
NOTE: there are BETTER routers than the WRT54G to run this software.
The WRT54G will ONLY run the Micro version of the software.
Do yourself a favor and get one that will run the Mega version of the software!
(They cost less than $100 per and well worth the price.
)

Linksys (Cisco) begin removing DD-WRT compatible firewall/routers from store shelves, replacing them with devices that are NOT compatible with the DD-WRT software in 2007/2008.
Get two DSL lines ($13 - $19 each), add in a NAT and a couple of these routers, probably need to do some secure tunneling to avoid the DNS of the Cable / DSL Companies and voila you are good to go.
Your DSL speed will vary based on distance, but even far away you can get 1.5MB down and 384Kbps up.
If closer you can get 3Mb down and 768Kbps up.
(That is faster than 98\% of Americans with Cable Modems because of throttling of service by Cable providers.
)Could you run the second DSL upstream over the first one?
Thus saving the cost of a second telephone line, you would lose the redundancy that two telephones would provide, but save around $13 per month on a second phone line...probably better just to get the two lines, you total cost of ownership (TCO) will still be less than $60 per month and you will have redundancy.
If one service gets stupid and starts throttling, drop them and get a different one.
Politicians help us if they all throttle!Solves allot of problems related to Cable companies throttling back service if you can create a secure VPN that their Deep Packet Inspection and/or Bandwidth shaping (throttling) service might have a harder time restricting (throttling).
Granted they would still throttle you back by your IP address or MAC address of Cable Modem.
Again, they do that now anyway.
A friend of mine was pissed that he was throttled back to less than 100K down and 0K up 85 - 95\% of the time.
He went on and paid his cable company the $10 burst / protection racket money / "give me a little more of what I am already paying for money" extra fee.
Keep in mind that they were promising up to 8MP and delivering less from day one.
He said he got a letter in the mail that they would be rolling out a new service in his area, the day after they started using that service, his bandwidth was throttled to next to nothing.
(0 Kbps upstream, consistently less than 20Kbps).
(There were 1 GB, 2GB and 3 GB ~ 1 second spikes ONLY, unless he was downloading a Linux distro, then he got 3GB - 4GB sustained with a 1 sec 6GB spike)  He is convinced that they throttle him back because he uses Skype VoIP service (uses P2P packets) in a vain attempt to get him to switch to the Cable companies VoIP service.
At less than $100 per year, Skype blows away any telco/Cable company offering.
Guess what his speed was after the switch over....Yep less than 100K (down) and 40K upstream 95\% of the time.
When he is throttled back to 0Kbps like I am, the videos sputter, gMail, twitter, Facebook and MySpace will not load because of the little extra bandwidth required for the skins and CSS markup language.
Note to Social Media sites, you guys should be SCREAMING, when throttled to less than 20Kbps (upstream), your websites simply WILL NOT LOAD!
You know it is bad when gMail will not load as it is efficiently coded, better than many.
Digg and Stumbleupon are simply NOT usable or aggrevating slow when the upstream bandwidth is throttled to less than 40Kbps, what extra CSS crap is slowing those two down so much more than everyone else is anyone's guess.
The reality is that I avoid either Digg or Stumbleupon because of TWC's throttling of my bandwidth.
They are painfully slow over my broadband (cough, cough, sputter, what a joke) provider.
At first, after paying the $10 protection racket fee for "burst" mode, he was NOT throttled below 20Kbps up, however after a few hours of watching Hulu, (yes after only a few hours with the new better, faster, more bandwidth service) he was once again throttled back to 0Kbps upstream.
The Hulu did play faster while he was getting over 30Kbps  up.
Guess the Cable company wants their cake and to eat it too.
Their bandwidth shaping software could easily see that he is watching/using an Internet IP TV service.
Obviously if you can get your content from ABC, NBC, CBS, SciFi, Hulu, Boxee (there are many, many more) via the Internet, via TCP/IP, you do NOT need TV via cable at all.
They most certainly do not like that!
Get a new HD TV and an a "power" UHF Antenna and you get all the local channels over the air for FREE anyway.
Add an Internet connection with at least 100Kbps upstream and you are good to go!
That is my long term plan...after 20+ years of being screwed by the Cable TV companies (somewhat by the telcos) I am fed enough to hold a grudge for life.
Tell my kids.
Tell my grandkids, perhaps even dis-inherit any family member that gives the Cable Company business if there is a non-cable provider serving their area.
If you do not get it, I am pissed, you should be too!I hope many more people see this for what it is, anti-American, a burden to job creation and a future for our children; hold a grudge and VOW never to give the Cable companies business as soon as you have a viable alternative/option.
Should they get disparate and finally after 20+ years decided to honor their 20+ year old promises and start providing fiber ~ tell them to stick it!
(honestly they have had over 20 years, there is no excuse, especially cost of fiber as they have gotten and spent more than it would have cost in lobbyist money...$1.8 million per week would lay allot of fiber.
)  If enough people get pissed and leave all Cable options for Internet access, eventually they would be FORCED to change their ways.
Thus the sheep that stay with them and the consumers that honestly do NOT have another option, would finally benefit.
Our elected officials are very aptly paid off by telco/cable lobbyists.
So there will never be government interdiction that is desperately needed.
We should have had that with the Telecommunications Act of 1996, but it was effectively watered down and made un-enforceable.Now they assume you are STUCK without a CHOICE and many are in monopoly markets.
In larger markets it is not much better, as you still need a telephone line from one of the telcos for DSL.
That will set you back from $7.95 to $13 per month in addition to the DSL fee.
However that is still less than $30 per month.
Thanks for nothing AT&amp;T, best reason ever to give your business to DSL eXtreme instead of AT&amp;T.
They should charge less than $5.00 per month for the phone line...it literally costs them nothing once its in the ground.
Same with Fiber as the Japanese have stated publicly.
Costs them less than .50 cents to provide 2GB of bandwidth!But you have to admit that these speeds (With the DD-WRT software you will see your WAN, LAN and WiFi related bandwidth upstream / downstream IN REAL TIME!
No more BS, you KNOW what you are getting.
This capability among others is simply not available with any non DD-WRT routers off the big box store shelves.
You can see it with commercial routers costing allot more.
Do not waste your money!
If you are not running a firewall/router with the DD-WRT software you really do NOT know what your bandwidth is?
Speed tests are not throttled, duh!
BTW, his speed test was over 9000K down and over 900K up; the speed tests must be allowed to go unthrottled.
The DD-WRT software showed this along with the Speedtest site.
So that proves the DD-WRT capable routers are not limited by their processor or memory to get higher bandwidths.
Any of us who have used a network sniffer to see Internet / network packets understand why this is true.
And the DD-WRT software will let you use both IPTables and VLANS!
Woot woot!
My friend was going to give them another month, complain a few times to see if they would open up his pipe or not.
The extra $10 per month he is paying is suppose to get him up to 14MB down and 2MB up.
So far based on his DD-WRT monitoring it has all been a lie!
He made some screen captures as proof.
Note that on many forums, people had been paying the extra "burst" (mob racket) fee for months and only started getting more bandwidth after complaining to the company.
The cable company flips some software switch at the office and voila, the person paying the protection-racket $10 fee gets better bandwidth.
Better but still not above the FCC definition upstream, especially not for sustained periods.
What a rip off.
My friend realizes that he would be better off with a guaranteed 1.5 MB down and 384Kbps up that he would get with DSL over the lies of up to 8MB (or 14MB) down and 900K (or 2MB) up.
He has determined based on this experience that it is the upstream bandwidth that hits the home user the most.
You get a steady 40K or 100K upstream and your video will not skip, falter, pause at all.
Plug a cable into a HD TV and Voila, great TV via the Internet.
Which begs the question, should an ISP (especially cable companies) be able to advertise broadband if they throttle back your bandwidth to below the current FCC definition of 768Kbps?Forget that the definition is 9 years out of date and should be at least 100MB / 100MB (doable with Fiber by 2000) or should be 1 GB / 1GB (doable with Fiber by 2006)!
Hey FCC are you even paying attention.
We know our politicians are receiving $1.8 Million per week to look the other way.
What is the FCC's excuse?
The Cable companies and telcos received over $200 Billion (tax money, additional taxes, additional fees) for the promise of FIBER since the 1990s.Think the Wendy's where's the beef commercial of the 80s.WHERE'S THE FIBER?I like my friend's quote and share it with you now freely: Give me Fiber or give me death!
Interesting side note: Only one company we have ever heard of dared to buck the cable / telco oligopoly and offer Fiber to Americans.
And it was after those same companies (1) refused to serve the community and (2) the local politicians invited them in to offer Fiber.
(They are protecting their families and their families' families by doing this, do your local politicians protect you?
)

 Greenlight, invited by the locals, came into Wilson N.C. and started putting Fiber to people's homes.
(I have no idea if the entire community has fiber or not yet, but many of them do)  Guess what they are paying for 100Mbps / 100Mbps fiber connection to the Internet.
Less than any other provider in the USA, $100 per month.
(btw FIOS charges $119 for 50MB / 5 MB.
)

I most certainly would pay $100 per month for 100MB / 100MB synchronous bandwidth over FIBER (not cable, not DSL, only FIBER) that given the last two decades reluctance of American Telco/Cable Cos to give Americans the fiber infrastructure that is desperately needed to create jobs in a global economy!
They promised Americans Fiber back in the 90s and still they do not honor their promise to Americans.
Their actions speak volumes, it yells for government regulation.
(as they control the market)

Here is the rub: After refusing to provide service to Wilson N.C. and after Greenlight started providing service via Fiber, the Telcos and Cable companies responded by attempting to pass through the North Carolina  (used the) state legislature rules, regulations and laws to prevent Greenlight and/or other companies from providing fiber or higher bandwidth service to the citizens of North Carolina.
It is my understanding that the issues will be brought up when the N.C. State legislature meets in the next session.
What is happening in North Carolina is exactly what is happening in Washington D.C.  (this is what they spend $1.8 Million per week on sheeple) This is what Net Neutrality is partially about.
From your home, you MUST NOT be throttled (censored) from getting higher bandwidth and Internet speed, not because they can not provide it (there are multiple articles factually proving that they can provide more) but because they will NOT provide it (unless you pay more).
And even when you pay more for it, you will still DO NOT GET IT.
That is what bandwidth shaping is all about.
It just feels like you are getting more because they throttle you less, especially your upstream bandwidth!
They say they are NOT THROTTLING!
Okay so they call it Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) or Bandwidth Shaping or Quality of Service (QoS); whatever.
If you are not getting at least 768K (and you ARE NOT if you are with a Cable Company (you just do not know it), no matter what the speed test says; the speed test is not throttled, duh moment there you are NOT GETTING BROADBAND.
Thus the Cable Companies specifically are committing FRAUD!
Probably to 100\% of their customers, definitely TO OVER 90\% of their customers.
Speed tests do NOT show this!
If you do not have a device running the DD-WRT software, you simply are NOT seeing the TRUTH!
And the truth is out there!
Note: The DD-WRT software gives a residential router/firewall costing less than $100 the capabilities of a $600 to $1000 plus commercial router!
Do your self a favor and find out the truth about your bandwidth, Purchase a Firewall/Router (hardware) that is capable of running the DD-WRT (free) software and start watching your bandwidth!
You see it in REAL TIME, 24 X 7!
The cable company can NOT lie to you anymore.
And they do try, I call them on it every time.
As soon as the call comes in, or I make a call, I switch to the screen running the DD-WRT status / bandwidth for WAN, LAN and WiFi.
I know exactly what is going on and I let the representative know it as I am talking to them.
You should too, your paying for bandwidth, probably close to $50 or more, YOU DO DESERVE what you are ALREADY PAYING FOR!
The last cable representative that called was trying to get me to upgrade my service.
I explained the bandwidth throttling going on right then, as I was speaking to them, and told them that if they wanted to get more of my money for additional services, they needed to first give me the service I am already paying for.
I do not get mad, I do not yell (though the excitement is evident in my tone) I state matter of factly why I will not consider upgrading at this time.
And I tell them what set of circumstances, steps their company can take, that will get me to change my mind.
In fact if you will do it, tell them you will churn if they do not fix it.
Just make sure you do your research first as you might not have any options in your area like some of us do.
If you do not have options, tell your politicians!
As for me I have options, they know what the problem is now.
I have told them it is in their system, if they choose to ignore me (as I expect them to) than they have made a business decision that they do not need my business and I will CHURN (telco term for a customer that is going to leave...they pay thousands of dollars for systems to predict churn, just so they can offer a customer incentives not to churn.
You see it costs them more to acquire a new customer than it does to keep an existing customer, thus paying hundreds of dollars for a system, churn alert, to predict churn can actually save them money.
And that is exactly how such a system is marketed to them.
Do not let people tell you it will not matter if you leave them as that is exactly what those of us with options must do to effect change for those without options.
) And that is exactly what I am planning to do, because they honestly do NOT care about any of us.
Sad but true.
At least I will have better upstream bandwidth with the DSL provider and that will ensure a steady TV/Video signal.
Perhaps I will be able to use digg and stumbleupon again, who knows.
But I will be BETTER OFF than I was with Cable!
However, sometime in the future, when viable fiber alternatives are available, as their customer base continues to shrink (and it will) they will start caring again, but it will be too little, too late.
At that point in time I will tell them to shove it!
They had their chance between the 1990s and today to do right by consumers, but they made a business decision to screw over Americans.
And that can NEVER be forgiven.
If you forgive without a track record of changes in their actions, over years, you basically are telling them they can do it to you again at any time.
No without years of actions, they MUST not be allowed to win back your TRUST!
Make them EARN back your TRUST over years.
Until they do, do not give them your hard earned money.
We all know corporations simply do NOT care.
There is only one way to make them care, with your $$$.
It must become extremely expensive for them to screw over one of us for all of us to be safe.
Do not do it for me, perhaps not even for your neighbors.
at least do it for your family, for your kids and for their kids!
They are in your monkeysphere, even if the rest of us are not!
Take up the cry with us, "Give me fiber or give me death!
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29765397</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29764209</id>
	<title>Re:You can't do what you want to do</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255610220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>a fucking book on how routing works</p></div><p>Now <i>there's</i> a fetish you'll only run across on Slashdot.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>a fucking book on how routing worksNow there 's a fetish you 'll only run across on Slashdot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>a fucking book on how routing worksNow there's a fetish you'll only run across on Slashdot.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29764041</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29861325</id>
	<title>There doesn't seem to be a general solution</title>
	<author>WindShadow</author>
	<datestamp>1256394660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>However most UNIX-like OS support connection binding. You can do this with Linux or BSD for sure, the problem is that the binding needs to be in place on both ends, you can't have a fast transfer rate to an arbitrary non-participating site. I used to have an ISP who let me bind multiple dial-up connections to his DSLAM, which did give fast connection to the outside world, but it wasn't a telco ISP. I could do it in the hours when he always had many unused ports, like 1am-6am, etc. But it still took two cooperating end points, it was just that one was a DSLAM.</p><p>You seem to have gotten other useful information, and you can also do it through multiple vpn connections, although I know of no remotely automated way to do it, I used to make the two connections and then run a script, aggregating a DSL and cable connection.</p><p>My feeling is that it's enough trouble do be of limited value, but it can be done, which was your original question.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>However most UNIX-like OS support connection binding .
You can do this with Linux or BSD for sure , the problem is that the binding needs to be in place on both ends , you ca n't have a fast transfer rate to an arbitrary non-participating site .
I used to have an ISP who let me bind multiple dial-up connections to his DSLAM , which did give fast connection to the outside world , but it was n't a telco ISP .
I could do it in the hours when he always had many unused ports , like 1am-6am , etc .
But it still took two cooperating end points , it was just that one was a DSLAM.You seem to have gotten other useful information , and you can also do it through multiple vpn connections , although I know of no remotely automated way to do it , I used to make the two connections and then run a script , aggregating a DSL and cable connection.My feeling is that it 's enough trouble do be of limited value , but it can be done , which was your original question .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>However most UNIX-like OS support connection binding.
You can do this with Linux or BSD for sure, the problem is that the binding needs to be in place on both ends, you can't have a fast transfer rate to an arbitrary non-participating site.
I used to have an ISP who let me bind multiple dial-up connections to his DSLAM, which did give fast connection to the outside world, but it wasn't a telco ISP.
I could do it in the hours when he always had many unused ports, like 1am-6am, etc.
But it still took two cooperating end points, it was just that one was a DSLAM.You seem to have gotten other useful information, and you can also do it through multiple vpn connections, although I know of no remotely automated way to do it, I used to make the two connections and then run a script, aggregating a DSL and cable connection.My feeling is that it's enough trouble do be of limited value, but it can be done, which was your original question.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29775083</id>
	<title>Re:Mac OS X?</title>
	<author>PhunkySchtuff</author>
	<datestamp>1255704720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>G'day Apple Guru,</p><p>The aggregate network device won't work for WAN connections. It's channel-bonding, or NIC teaming using <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Link\_aggregation" title="wikipedia.org">LACP</a> [wikipedia.org] and needs to be explicitly supported by the switch at the other end of the Ethernet leads. It operates between an Etherhet switch and a host and requires that both endpoints of the connection are on the one switch (or on the one group of stacked switches, if appropriately configured)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>G'day Apple Guru,The aggregate network device wo n't work for WAN connections .
It 's channel-bonding , or NIC teaming using LACP [ wikipedia.org ] and needs to be explicitly supported by the switch at the other end of the Ethernet leads .
It operates between an Etherhet switch and a host and requires that both endpoints of the connection are on the one switch ( or on the one group of stacked switches , if appropriately configured )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>G'day Apple Guru,The aggregate network device won't work for WAN connections.
It's channel-bonding, or NIC teaming using LACP [wikipedia.org] and needs to be explicitly supported by the switch at the other end of the Ethernet leads.
It operates between an Etherhet switch and a host and requires that both endpoints of the connection are on the one switch (or on the one group of stacked switches, if appropriately configured)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29764867</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29765359</id>
	<title>Re:What are you really trying to do?</title>
	<author>KingSkippus</author>
	<datestamp>1255621740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Unfortunately, you never specify what A is...</p></div></blockquote><p>As the other poster noted, it's not always easy to just add more bandwidth.  Where I live, the absolute fastest DSL line I can get is 1.5 Mbps.  Fortunately, my cable company offers faster options, up to 22 Mbps.  If they didn't, I'd be screwed if I actually wanted a decent connection relatively cheaply.</p><p>Also, one nice thing about having multiple links over multiple ISPs multiplexed together is that you have redundant links.  If one ISP is having problems, you still have some bandwidth, which is generally better than no bandwidth at all.  I'm assuming that the submitter would like features like automatic failover, so that if one link goes down, all of the traffic will defer to the other link until it comes back up.</p><p>Where I work, we have this type of setup with most of our big plant sites, although with the bandwidth we're talking about, it's definitely high-end business-class (read: expensive as hell) service, and because we don't want sites to become dependent on the higher bandwidth, we leave our secondary circuits idle unless needed.  It would be nice for there to be a solution that offers the higher bandwidth and redundancy of a multiplexed connection cheaper than it would cost to only be available to huge MNCs.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately , you never specify what A is...As the other poster noted , it 's not always easy to just add more bandwidth .
Where I live , the absolute fastest DSL line I can get is 1.5 Mbps .
Fortunately , my cable company offers faster options , up to 22 Mbps .
If they did n't , I 'd be screwed if I actually wanted a decent connection relatively cheaply.Also , one nice thing about having multiple links over multiple ISPs multiplexed together is that you have redundant links .
If one ISP is having problems , you still have some bandwidth , which is generally better than no bandwidth at all .
I 'm assuming that the submitter would like features like automatic failover , so that if one link goes down , all of the traffic will defer to the other link until it comes back up.Where I work , we have this type of setup with most of our big plant sites , although with the bandwidth we 're talking about , it 's definitely high-end business-class ( read : expensive as hell ) service , and because we do n't want sites to become dependent on the higher bandwidth , we leave our secondary circuits idle unless needed .
It would be nice for there to be a solution that offers the higher bandwidth and redundancy of a multiplexed connection cheaper than it would cost to only be available to huge MNCs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately, you never specify what A is...As the other poster noted, it's not always easy to just add more bandwidth.
Where I live, the absolute fastest DSL line I can get is 1.5 Mbps.
Fortunately, my cable company offers faster options, up to 22 Mbps.
If they didn't, I'd be screwed if I actually wanted a decent connection relatively cheaply.Also, one nice thing about having multiple links over multiple ISPs multiplexed together is that you have redundant links.
If one ISP is having problems, you still have some bandwidth, which is generally better than no bandwidth at all.
I'm assuming that the submitter would like features like automatic failover, so that if one link goes down, all of the traffic will defer to the other link until it comes back up.Where I work, we have this type of setup with most of our big plant sites, although with the bandwidth we're talking about, it's definitely high-end business-class (read: expensive as hell) service, and because we don't want sites to become dependent on the higher bandwidth, we leave our secondary circuits idle unless needed.
It would be nice for there to be a solution that offers the higher bandwidth and redundancy of a multiplexed connection cheaper than it would cost to only be available to huge MNCs.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29763969</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29765529</id>
	<title>Etherchannel</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255623960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>presuming you are not using a suckful ISP and you've got ethernet, just etherchannel two ports together at both ends.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>presuming you are not using a suckful ISP and you 've got ethernet , just etherchannel two ports together at both ends .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>presuming you are not using a suckful ISP and you've got ethernet, just etherchannel two ports together at both ends.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29765565</id>
	<title>LISP Routing</title>
	<author>paul248</author>
	<datestamp>1255624320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Some people (Cisco, etc.) are working on developing the <a href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3750938102931445233#" title="google.com">Locator/ID Separation Protocol</a> [google.com] as a core component of the Internet infrastructure.</p><p>If that ever takes off, you'll be able to buy a Provider Independent IP address block, advertise it through multiple ISPs (even Cable/DSL), and transparently load balance your upstream and downstream traffic across them, without bloating the core BGP tables.</p><p>The downside is, you'll have to use an MTU that's smaller than 1500, but I'd say it's a fair trade.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some people ( Cisco , etc .
) are working on developing the Locator/ID Separation Protocol [ google.com ] as a core component of the Internet infrastructure.If that ever takes off , you 'll be able to buy a Provider Independent IP address block , advertise it through multiple ISPs ( even Cable/DSL ) , and transparently load balance your upstream and downstream traffic across them , without bloating the core BGP tables.The downside is , you 'll have to use an MTU that 's smaller than 1500 , but I 'd say it 's a fair trade .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some people (Cisco, etc.
) are working on developing the Locator/ID Separation Protocol [google.com] as a core component of the Internet infrastructure.If that ever takes off, you'll be able to buy a Provider Independent IP address block, advertise it through multiple ISPs (even Cable/DSL), and transparently load balance your upstream and downstream traffic across them, without bloating the core BGP tables.The downside is, you'll have to use an MTU that's smaller than 1500, but I'd say it's a fair trade.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_2220228_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29764041
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29764351
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_2220228_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29763969
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29765359
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29766829
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_2220228_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29764041
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29764239
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_2220228_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29764033
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29764305
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29769915
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_2220228_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29763851
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29765397
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29765937
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_2220228_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29764035
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29764439
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_2220228_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29763851
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29765397
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29766339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29801501
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29813117
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_2220228_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29764041
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29764583
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_2220228_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29763929
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29766519
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_2220228_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29764041
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29765045
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_2220228_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29764667
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29766017
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_2220228_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29764667
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29766355
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_2220228_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29764033
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29764305
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29765001
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_2220228_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29764033
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29764305
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29769273
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_2220228_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29764033
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29765131
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_2220228_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29763851
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29764067
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_2220228_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29764507
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29765641
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_2220228_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29764041
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29764643
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_2220228_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29764867
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29775083
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_2220228_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29763851
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29764151
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29766381
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_2220228_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29763969
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29765857
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_2220228_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29764035
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29776811
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_2220228_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29764033
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29764305
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29765583
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29767115
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_2220228_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29764041
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29764209
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29778049
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_2220228_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29764123
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29766909
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_2220228_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29764041
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29766769
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_2220228_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29763937
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29764915
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_2220228_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29763851
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29768429
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_2220228_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29764507
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29765733
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_2220228_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29763937
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29764965
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_15_2220228.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29764277
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_15_2220228.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29764035
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29776811
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29764439
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_15_2220228.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29763917
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_15_2220228.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29764507
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29765733
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29765641
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_15_2220228.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29764895
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_15_2220228.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29765105
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_15_2220228.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29764123
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29766909
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_15_2220228.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29764511
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_15_2220228.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29764041
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29764239
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29764209
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29778049
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29766769
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29764643
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29764583
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29765045
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29764351
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_15_2220228.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29763929
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29766519
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_15_2220228.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29767097
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_15_2220228.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29764129
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_15_2220228.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29764667
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29766017
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29766355
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_15_2220228.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29764033
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29764305
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29769915
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29765001
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29769273
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29765583
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29767115
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29765131
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_15_2220228.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29763937
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29764965
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29764915
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_15_2220228.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29765657
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_15_2220228.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29763969
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29765857
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29765359
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29766829
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_15_2220228.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29764195
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_15_2220228.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29763851
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29768429
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29765397
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29766339
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29801501
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29813117
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29765937
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29764067
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29764151
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29766381
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_15_2220228.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29764867
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29775083
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_15_2220228.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2220228.29765565
</commentlist>
</conversation>
