bonded 3G mobile broadband

I doubt its possible, but could be wrong.
Dont have a router to test :(
 
Well, you will need 2x3G routers and a DUAL-wan load balancer to bond both of them
 
Peon said:
Well, you will need 2x3G routers and a DUAL-wan load balancer to bond both of them
Click to expand...

That's called load-balancing, and can be used in failover mode as well. But it is not bonding.

True bonding requires hardware on both the client side, and the network operators side. The hardware on either end merges the 2+ connections into a single fat pipe whose capacity/speed is the sum of the capacity/speed of all pipes, less negligible bonding overhead. TCP connections sent over this pipe are able to utilise the full capacity of the pipe.

With load balancing, a TCP connection can only utilise a single connection at a time, and the max speed of the TCP connection is the max speed of the 3G connection through which the data packets are being sent. So loading a web page could might use both 3G connections, parts of the page will be loaded up on 1 connection, and other parts on another. Each TCP connection could be routed out to any 3G connection. This can be problematic for certain types of services, especially internet banking, and other services services requiring secure connections.

With bonding, you will also have a single public IP address for the pipe. With load balancing, you will have a different public IP address for each connection (ignoring the fact that getting a public IP address for a 3G connection isn't so easy).

Not sure if you get 3G routers with load balancing, but you can get a WAN router with load balancing, where each ethernet port on the router connects to a PPPOE connection (can be a 3G router, iBurst modem, ADSL modem, or any device that supports PPPOE).

Dual WAN routers are very common, and can be purchased.

So for load-balancing multiple 3G connections, yes it is possible. For true bonding, it is not possible, at least not in RSA. I've never heard of it being done anywhere else in the world either.

But Google is your friend if you'd like to check to be sure. Let us know what you discover, so we can all learn.
 
Last edited:
For true bonding, it is not possible, at least not in RSA. I've never heard of it being done anywhere else in the world either
Click to expand...

Agreed; no true bonding in SA. (yet).

However, Virtual Bonding would achieve the same result provided you can put bonding routers on either side to split & then re-combine the data & provide break-out to the internet (or wan).

Virtual bonding is carried out using some form of tunnelling (vpn?) for each connection. All the actual “bonding” is done with software in the routers on either side of the end points. This allows bonding to take place between, & across, different types of connections.

Hypothetically speaking:
If you have rack space in a hosting facility with a decent break-out, you could put the B-side bonding router in there. So the A-side router on the client’s premises connects to the B-side via a few 3g routers & gets breakout over at the hosting facility.
Correct me if I’m wrong – but that is how all “bonding” solutions offered locally are done.
 
Brandon said:
Agreed; no true bonding in SA. (yet).

However, Virtual Bonding would achieve the same result provided you can put bonding routers on either side to split & then re-combine the data & provide break-out to the internet (or wan).

Virtual bonding is carried out using some form of tunnelling (vpn?) for each connection. All the actual “bonding” is done with software in the routers on either side of the end points. This allows bonding to take place between, & across, different types of connections.

Hypothetically speaking:
If you have rack space in a hosting facility with a decent break-out, you could put the B-side bonding router in there. So the A-side router on the client’s premises connects to the B-side via a few 3g routers & gets breakout over at the hosting facility.
Correct me if I’m wrong – but that is how all “bonding” solutions offered locally are done.
Click to expand...

Not arguing with anything you or ToxicWazte posted.

True bonding happens at Layer-2 so lets assume you create your own layer-2 interfaces (OpenVPN TAP for example) and you have control over the endpoints should this not be considered true bonding? At the end of the day the openvpn tap is seen as a physical layer-2 interface.
 
ponder said:
True bonding happens at Layer-2 so lets assume you create your own layer-2 interfaces (OpenVPN TAP for example) and you have control over the endpoints should this not be considered true bonding? At the end of the day the openvpn tap is seen as a physical layer-2 interface.
Click to expand...
If you have access to a device that can terminate the Internet side of a bonded tunnel then you can do this yourself. But the key thing is that you need termination devices both sides. A WAN load balancer installed at the client side can't do this on its own.
 
ponder said:
True bonding happens at Layer-2 so lets assume you create your own layer-2 interfaces (OpenVPN TAP for example) and you have control over the endpoints should this not be considered true bonding? At the end of the day the openvpn tap is seen as a physical layer-2 interface.
Click to expand...

Good point.

But how can bonding at the exchange or service provider level be compared to running with the added overheads of multiple vpn tunnels?

IMHO, surely running over vpn is virtual bonding. True bonding involves hardware at the exchange / SP ?
 
ToxicWazte said:
That's called load-balancing, and can be used in failover mode as well. But it is not bonding.

True bonding requires hardware on both the client side, and the network operators side. The hardware on either end merges the 2+ connections into a single fat pipe whose capacity/speed is the sum of the capacity/speed of all pipes, less negligible bonding overhead. TCP connections sent over this pipe are able to utilise the full capacity of the pipe.

With load balancing, a TCP connection can only utilise a single connection at a time, and the max speed of the TCP connection is the max speed of the 3G connection through which the data packets are being sent. So loading a web page could might use both 3G connections, parts of the page will be loaded up on 1 connection, and other parts on another. Each TCP connection could be routed out to any 3G connection. This can be problematic for certain types of services, especially internet banking, and other services services requiring secure connections.

With bonding, you will also have a single public IP address for the pipe. With load balancing, you will have a different public IP address for each connection (ignoring the fact that getting a public IP address for a 3G connection isn't so easy).

Not sure if you get 3G routers with load balancing, but you can get a WAN router with load balancing, where each ethernet port on the router connects to a PPPOE connection (can be a 3G router, iBurst modem, ADSL modem, or any device that supports PPPOE).

Dual WAN routers are very common, and can be purchased.

So for load-balancing multiple 3G connections, yes it is possible. For true bonding, it is not possible, at least not in RSA. I've never heard of it being done anywhere else in the world either.

But Google is your friend if you'd like to check to be sure. Let us know what you discover, so we can all learn.
Click to expand...

Thank you for explaining that. I've learnt something.
 
Brandon said:
But how can bonding at the exchange or service provider level be compared to running with the added overheads of multiple vpn tunnels?
Click to expand...

One scenario I can see it beneficial for is when you have a company with a HQ and satellite offices. It's not really suitable for your average user or someone that just wants internet access unless you have rack space at your SP. You're also not going to get away from the overhead traffic if you do it yourself, you will have to calculate the overheads in to your project design etc. Then there is the cost thing.


Brandon said:
IMHO, surely running over vpn is virtual bonding. True bonding involves hardware at the exchange / SP ?
Click to expand...

Only requirement is that it be L2, it can be physical or 'virtual'. Whether you have a physical cable/interface or a a virtual L2 interface you created yourself makes no difference. The difficulty comes from having control over the end points of the circuit. There's no rule that says your SP have to terminate and bond the circuits, it's just easier for them to do than anyone else.
 
Last edited:
I've bonded 4 x 4Mbps ADSL links (with 2 x Fishbone)
it's SUPER fast.


Line bonding has nothing to do with the ISP or with the medium (3g, diginet, wifi etc) , it's ALL about the bonding hardware.

You need 1 x bonder at your premises and 1 x bonder at your ISP. (ideally the EXACT same model)


You can bond 3 x ADSL + 1 x diginet + 2 x wireless if you want.
As long as all your links go to a single ISP (to the other line bonder device) you're OK.

The line bonders use ethernet interfaces, so whatever medium you choose (wifi, 3g, diginet, whetever) connect their ethernet interfaces to the line bonder and assign IP's.

Your ISP needs to give you some public IP's which will be assigned to the 2 x line bonders.

The line bonder is basically a load balancing/aggregation router.


below is a bonded solution using 3 external ports. (1 x diginet + 1 x wifi + 1 x 3g)

diginet (serial) -> router -> router ethernet port -> line bonder ethernet port
wifi device -> router ethernet port -> line bonder ethernet port
3g device -> router ethernet port - > line bonder ethernet port


a note on bonding: VPN traffic doesn't bond so lekka.

the line bonders cannot disassemble VPN packets and re-assemble then over a bonded link.
They tend to send the encrypted packets over a single link (normally the fastest one)

if you VPN, split your traffic, VPN over your fastest link and the rest over bonded.

Try VOX's "Fisbone" product,
I've used it, it works EXTREMELY well for HTTP (not VPN)

Apparently Nology has a "Peplink" router that does the same.


word of warning, if you bond only a bunch of ADSL links and your DLSAM is offline then so are you.
chuck in a 3G or small wifi/diginet link in just in case the DSLAM dies.
 
Hey guys,

I've been doing some research and you actually can combine multiple Internet lines (eg including a cable modem) to make a faster and more reliable one. The Internet lines can be different technologies and can come from different providers, and it is not necessary to have special software (e.g. MLPPP) or hardware at the provider premises - they don't even have to know you are bonding their line to another. I have seen this done at a trade show recently at layer 4.

For example, you could bond together four ADSL lines at 6Mbps down/ 768k up to create a 24Mbps down/ 3Mbps up connection, even for a single file transfer or a streaming video source.

I'm sure if you google search for "broadband bonding" you'll find what you're looking for.

Hope this helps your search.
 
bubbatentoe said:
You can bond 3 x ADSL + 1 x diginet + 2 x wireless if you want.
Click to expand...
While this sounds nice in theory, there are some practical performance limitations for true bonding (packet or packet fragment based). Virtually all data transfers have some inherent sequence to them, that is data must arrive in a certain order to remain coherent.

Therefore the speed for a single data transfer flow can only be as fast as the slowest link in the bundle, otherwise sequencing will be lost. Session (flow) based load-balancing obviously does not incur this limitation, but then a single flow can only perform at the speed of a single link (then one its been allocated to).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X