DComTalk.com

James Knott wrote:

f/fgeorge wrote:


He'd need a business account, to do what he wants.


ACTUALLY he could do what he wants IF he got cable AND dsl connections
in his home. The 2 companies would not have to even know about the
other one. True dsl is not upto cable speeds but it is fast and would
solve the 2 cable modems from one company issue.


Well, with that solution, there'll be routing issues and how would the
double price compare with a business service?

I would think $75-80 would cover it and give you maybe 6-7 Mb - what does
business service offer for B/W and at what price ?

f/fgeorge wrote:

ACTUALLY he could do what he wants IF he got cable AND dsl connections
in his home. The 2 companies would not have to even know about the
other one. True dsl is not upto cable speeds but it is fast and would
solve the 2 cable modems from one company issue.

It would still be a violation of the terms of service for Comcast, and if
the DSL account is also a residential account, it probably would be a
violation of their term of service as well.

Nothing like screwing two companies with more lawyers than people in some
small cities, and then having to deal with tenants who demand that the
Internet service continue. It would be so much fun for him to be in the
middle of that. How could one resist such an opportunity?

--
Warren H.

==========
Disclaimer: My views reflect those of myself, and not my
employer, my friends, nor (as she often tells me) my wife.
Any resemblance to the views of anybody living or dead is
coincidental. No animals were hurt in the writing of this
response -- unless you count my dog who desperately wants
to go outside now.

This fall, vacuum up your leaves instead of raking:
http://www.holzemville.com/mall/blackan ... owers.html

On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 16:38:00 -0800, "$Bill" <news@SPAMOLAtodbe.com>
wrote:

James Knott wrote:

f/fgeorge wrote:


He'd need a business account, to do what he wants.


ACTUALLY he could do what he wants IF he got cable AND dsl connections
in his home. The 2 companies would not have to even know about the
other one. True dsl is not upto cable speeds but it is fast and would
solve the 2 cable modems from one company issue.


Well, with that solution, there'll be routing issues and how would the
double price compare with a business service?

I would think $75-80 would cover it and give you maybe 6-7 Mb - what does
business service offer for B/W and at what price ?
I currently get almost 6 meg downloads with regular Comcast!

Not all the time but often enough to notice.

$Bill wrote:

Well, with that solution, there'll be routing issues and how would the
double price compare with a business service?

I would think $75-80 would cover it and give you maybe 6-7 Mb - what does
business service offer for B/W and at what price ?

I have no idea about business rates, but even ignoring that, there are still
the routing and load balancing to consider.

James Knott wrote:

$Bill wrote:


Well, with that solution, there'll be routing issues and how would the
double price compare with a business service?

I would think $75-80 would cover it and give you maybe 6-7 Mb - what does
business service offer for B/W and at what price ?


I have no idea about business rates, but even ignoring that, there are still
the routing and load balancing to consider.

David already supplied a solution.

On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 08:04:08 -0500, James Knott
<james.knott@rogers.com> wrote:

$Bill wrote:

Well, with that solution, there'll be routing issues and how would the
double price compare with a business service?

I would think $75-80 would cover it and give you maybe 6-7 Mb - what does
business service offer for B/W and at what price ?

I have no idea about business rates, but even ignoring that, there are still
the routing and load balancing to consider.
There are routers that will do this automatically.

f/fgeorge wrote:

I have no idea about business rates, but even ignoring that, there are
still the routing and load balancing to consider.
There are routers that will do this automatically.

No matter what you have, you cannot load balance over two completely
independent connections, without cooperation of the two ISPs. At best, you
can attempt to forward traffic to the two routes as a form of balancing,
but you won't get proper balancing. That is one a TCP connection starts on
one path, it has to stay on that path. You cannot, for example, split a
large transfer over the two paths.

$Bill wrote:

David already supplied a solution.

???

The only note I see from him, is the one about the ToS.

On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 06:58:31 -0500, James Knott
<james.knott@rogers.com> wrote:

f/fgeorge wrote:

I have no idea about business rates, but even ignoring that, there are
still the routing and load balancing to consider.
There are routers that will do this automatically.

No matter what you have, you cannot load balance over two completely
independent connections, without cooperation of the two ISPs. At best, you
can attempt to forward traffic to the two routes as a form of balancing,
but you won't get proper balancing. That is one a TCP connection starts on
one path, it has to stay on that path. You cannot, for example, split a
large transfer over the two paths.

Then perhaps you should look at the Cisco stuff or even here:

http://www.broadbandbuyer.co.uk/Shop/Sh ... 12&Alt=Yes
Yes it can be done and quite well, remember we are talking about
downloading and uploading files here. They come from and go to a
specific point on the net. The order they are received makes no
difference just that the whole file is sent or received.

James Knott wrote:

$Bill wrote:


David already supplied a solution.


???

The only note I see from him, is the one about the ToS.

Here's what he said:

"The Edimax PermaLink PRI-682
http://www.edimax.com/html/english/products/PRI682.htm has two
WAN ports and performs load balancing."

From: "James Knott" <james.knott@rogers.com>

| $Bill wrote:
|

David already supplied a solution.
|

| ???
|
| The only note I see from him, is the one about the ToS.

Why ?

I posted twice in this thread ?
{ this makes 3 times }

--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm

$Bill wrote:

James Knott wrote:


$Bill wrote:



David already supplied a solution.


???

The only note I see from him, is the one about the ToS.


Here's what he said:

"The Edimax PermaLink PRI-682
http://www.edimax.com/html/english/products/PRI682.htm has two
WAN ports and performs load balancing."

Comp-U-Plus has the 'NETGEAR FVS124GNA PROSAFE VPN FIREWALL 25
WITH 4 GIGABIT LAN AND DUAL WAN PORTS' for $140.

http://netgear.com/products/details/FVS124G.php

From: "$Bill" <news@SPAMOLAtodbe.com>


|
| Comp-U-Plus has the 'NETGEAR FVS124GNA PROSAFE VPN FIREWALL 25
| WITH 4 GIGABIT LAN AND DUAL WAN PORTS' for $140.
|
| http://netgear.com/products/details/FVS124G.php

All looks great on the Netgear except...
Performance Features:
· Throughput: Up to 11.5 Mbps WAN-to-LAN, up to 2.1 Mbps for 3DES throughput

I know some cable companies are upto 10Mb/s already.

--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm

David H. Lipman wrote:

From: "$Bill" <news@SPAMOLAtodbe.com


|
| Comp-U-Plus has the 'NETGEAR FVS124GNA PROSAFE VPN FIREWALL 25
| WITH 4 GIGABIT LAN AND DUAL WAN PORTS' for $140.
|
| http://netgear.com/products/details/FVS124G.php

All looks great on the Netgear except...
Performance Features:
· Throughput: Up to 11.5 Mbps WAN-to-LAN, up to 2.1 Mbps for 3DES throughput

I know some cable companies are upto 10Mb/s already.

How much of your traffic is going to be VPN ?

f/fgeorge wrote:

On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 06:58:31 -0500, James Knott
james.knott@rogers.com> wrote:

f/fgeorge wrote:

I have no idea about business rates, but even ignoring that, there are
still the routing and load balancing to consider.
There are routers that will do this automatically.

No matter what you have, you cannot load balance over two completely
independent connections, without cooperation of the two ISPs. At best,
you can attempt to forward traffic to the two routes as a form of
balancing,
but you won't get proper balancing. That is one a TCP connection starts
on
one path, it has to stay on that path. You cannot, for example, split a
large transfer over the two paths.

Then perhaps you should look at the Cisco stuff or even here:

http://www.broadbandbuyer.co.uk/Shop/Sh ... 12&Alt=Yes
Yes it can be done and quite well, remember we are talking about
downloading and uploading files here. They come from and go to a
specific point on the net. The order they are received makes no
difference just that the whole file is sent or received.

Perhaps you'd better take the time to understand how TCP works. When you
use TCP, for file transfer, telnet, ssh, etc., all communication is done
according to IP address & port pairs, commonly known as sockets. This
means that you cannot arbitrarily change the source or destination
addresses of packets within a TCP stream. Assume you have two internet
connections "A" with an address of 1.1.1.1 and "B" with 2.2.2.2. Now, if
you open a TCP connection from A, all packets for that connection must go
through A, in order to maintain the proper address for the TCP connection.
Also, there is no way for a computer at the other end to even know about
the B address, so it cannot even send a packet to it. Such limitations do
not occur with UDP data, though the application may choke on a different
address. Now as for those devices you linked to. You'll notice they talk
a lot about VPN and VoIP. Those are two systems that generally use UDP or
other connectionless protocol, so they can make use of the split path,
including TCP connections, via VPN, between two points, where those boxes
are located. Those boxes will not work for TCP traffic, from a single
point, to the internet at large. You need one of those boxes at each end
of the redundant paths. So, if you have two offices and want to have two
links between them, sure those boxes will work. On the other hand, if you
have only one box and two connections, your TCP traffic will get absolutely
no benefit, other than if you can force traffic over the different paths.
Even that will require that the computers on your local network are
configured to work with one or the other ISP.