LARTC
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [LARTC] Redundant internet connections.

To: Mail List - Linux Advanced Routing and Traffic Control <lartc@mailman.ds9a.nl>
Subject: Re: [LARTC] Redundant internet connections.
From: Grant Taylor <gtaylor@riverviewtech.net>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 10:59:53 -0500
Delivered-to: sp-com-lists@consult.net
Delivered-to: lartc-list@securepoint.com
Delivered-to: lartc@outpost.ds9a.nl
In-reply-to: <200706221557.43742.gustavo@angulosolido.pt>
List-archive: <http://mailman.ds9a.nl/pipermail/lartc>
List-help: <mailto:lartc-request@mailman.ds9a.nl?subject=help>
List-id: "Mailinglist of the Linux Advanced Routing &amp; Traffic Control project" <lartc.mailman.ds9a.nl>
List-post: <mailto:lartc@mailman.ds9a.nl>
List-subscribe: <http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc>, <mailto:lartc-request@mailman.ds9a.nl?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc>, <mailto:lartc-request@mailman.ds9a.nl?subject=unsubscribe>
Organization: Riverview Technologies Inc.
References: <467A2354.1070805@riverviewtech.net> <200706221254.01339.gustavo@angulosolido.pt> <467BDB2F.8080003@riverviewtech.net> <200706221557.43742.gustavo@angulosolido.pt>
Reply-to: gtaylor+reply@riverviewtech.net
Sender: lartc-bounces@mailman.ds9a.nl
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.1.3) Gecko/20070511 Thunderbird/2.0.0.0 Mnenhy/0.7.5.666
On 06/22/07 09:57, Gustavo Homem wrote:
I've done this, but I think it's unreliable for professional use. The USB modems are non-standard so if one burns you can't exchange it for a different one without feasible but time consuming tweaking (tried more then one USB devices...).

Even for Ethernet briding devices I only use models which are delivered by ISPs (rather than retail shop devices), to garantee they were tested for stability:

POTS: http://www.huawei.com/products/terminal/products/view.do?id=87

ISDN: 
http://www.acbs-dsl-store.com/contenu/Articles/Article.asp?PdtNum=DSLGP628LP


These models run forever in bridged mode. The second one accepts multiple PPPoE clients on different ports.


That's expectable since using PPPoA instead of PPPoEoA, reduces the overhead. But I don't know a standard PPPoA setup.

But if we want QoS working, we can't use the full line capability anyway.

Even if that happens, it would hardly compensate the risk of lower reliability.

All very valid points and things to consider. However for a home environment / non critical environment, it provides a lot of potential.



Grant. . . .
_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list
LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>