Load balancing two DSL internet connections (UK)

[saur0]

i've moved to a new house and there is limited bandwidth due to the distance from the exchange, but I do have two separate phonelines each with a 8mbps DSL internet connection. I was wondering how to go about using both and load balancing my network traffic across them, would it be worth the effort/cost?

 

 

[Windows7ge]

There's ways to make it happen. There's a service offered by a company that would aggregate the links and allow you to use the combined bandwidth but I don't know if it's offered in the UK. Or if it can even be used on DSL connections.

There's other ways it could be aggregated but you'd only see the benefits if you have multiple running clients.

[saur0]

after a bit of research I think i'm going to give this a go

 

https://www.ubnt.com/unifi-routing/usg/

[Windows7ge]

4 hours ago, saur0 said:

after a bit of research I think i'm going to give this a go

 

https://www.ubnt.com/unifi-routing/usg/

The mini one or the Pro? The small one won't do you much good. It only has 1 WAN port.

[AbsoluteFool]

PFsense can do this. I bet that would be easier than buying devices from a hardware seller.

[saur0]

On 11/21/2018 at 12:45 AM, Windows7ge said:

The mini one or the Pro? The small one won't do you much good. It only has 1 WAN port.

The 3rd port can be configured as either a second lan or wan port as far as I can tell.

[Alex Atkin UK]

Beware that some websites really don't like your IP address constantly changing via load-balancing so you would need to enable sticky connections and even then could run into issues.

 

A VPN that combined the two into a single IP address is likely the best option, but then you'd need a good router handle that for the whole network anyway.

 

I'm actually considering the options for doing this myself right now on pfSense.

[mynameisjuan]

Ask you ISP about bonding. Most do it. Its as simple at combining the pairs at the RJ11 and plugging it into a bonding capable modem. 

 

Just a heads up because I have a few customers with it. Its not the most stable and strange problems happen if one loses connection momentarily. God forbid latency spikes on one pair.  

 

1 hour ago, Alex Atkin UK said:

Beware that some websites really don't like your IP address constantly changing via load-balancing so you would need to enable sticky connections and even then could run into issues.

DSL bonding doesnt utilize two IPs. Its a true bond with bit splitting essentially equal to split horizon and then the access card joins them at the end. 

[Falconevo]

On 11/21/2018 at 2:52 AM, AbsoluteFool said:

PFsense can do this. I bet that would be easier than buying devices from a hardware seller.

I'd probably go down the pfSense route, I would also advise using 2 different ISPs also.

To do this on DSL lines, you need modems that are capable of running in bridge mode, so a pair of Draytek Vigor 130's for example.

[mynameisjuan]

3 minutes ago, Falconevo said:

I'd probably go down the pfSense route, I would also advise using 2 different ISPs also.

To do this on DSL lines, you need modems that are capable of running in bridge mode, so a pair of Draytek Vigor 130's for example.

That just overly complicates the situation. 

 

You dont need two modems and with DSL, two ISPs should not even be considered. A single modem supporting bonding will do. Pick up a VDSL Comtrend for like $60. Single device with minimal impact. 

[Falconevo]

1 minute ago, mynameisjuan said:

That just overly complicates the situation. 

  

You dont need two modems and with DSL, two ISPs should not even be considered. A single modem supporting bonding will do. Pick up a VDSL Comtrend for like $60. Single device with minimal impact. 

Having worked with and started one of the earliest bonded dsl projects for Pipex and Tiscali in my youth and have had dual-wan setups for over 10 years mixing from dsl/dsl to dsl/coax and dsl/ftth.  I completely disagree, having different ISP's prevents loss of service should one of the ISP have issues with its BRAS or have routing issues inside it's own network.  It also provides the flexibility to chose an ISP to route traffic via if they have a shorter route to the destination IP improving latency for anything latency sensitive when the destination is known.  You are more than welcome to disagree and have your own opinion, the 'complications' are minimal compared with the benefits provided.

[mynameisjuan]

1 minute ago, Falconevo said:

Having worked with and started one of the earliest bonded dsl projects for Pipex and Tiscali in my youth and have had dual-wan setups for over 10 years mixing from dsl/dsl to dsl/coax and dsl/ftth.  I completely disagree, having different ISP's prevents loss of service should one of the ISP have issues with its BRAS or have routing issues inside it's own network.  It also provides the flexibility to chose an ISP to route traffic via if they have a shorter route to the destination IP improving latency for anything latency sensitive when the destination is known.  You are more than welcome to disagree and have your own opinion, the 'complications' are minimal compared with the benefits provided.

The OP is looking to increase speed not stability.

 

So yeah, your method does increase stability if one provider drops but:

- Speeds are still capped at 8mbps for one ISP and Xmbps at another.

- Load balancing without proper setup will destroy a lot of TCP connections

- Split horizon balancing will tank his speeds over all.

- Troubleshooting time with double or triple.

 

Unless he need 100% uptime or just any need to have balancing, bonding is the way to go from one ISP. 

 

Bonded, fast ADSL2+ will give him 14-15mbps fiber like speeds. 8 megs is extremely limited, doubling bandwidth is more important than uptime at that end. 

[Falconevo]

1 minute ago, mynameisjuan said:

The OP is looking to increase speed not stability.

 

So yeah, your method does increase stability if one provider drops but:

- Speeds are still capped at 8mbps for one ISP and Xmbps at another.

 - Load balancing without proper setup will destroy a lot of TCP connections

- Split horizon balancing will tank his speeds over all.

 - Troubleshooting time with double or triple.

 

Unless he need 100% uptime or just any need to have balancing, bonding is the way to go from one ISP. 

 

Bonded, fast ADSL2+ will give him 14-15mbps fiber like speeds. 8 megs is extremely limited, doubling bandwidth is more important than uptime at that end. 

Bonding is ISP specific and will require additional cost for him also, it's not done for free and the costs will be significantly increased over just 2 individual adsl lines as they will need to support multi-link PPP.  In fact the only ISP in the UK I know that still takes this seriously is AAISP and I don't think they use multi-link PPP and just balance with their own custom linux based router.

Bonded dsl using MLPPP in the UK is absolutely piss poor, it never got the love it deserved from ISPs.  I know as I worked for around 5 of the major dsl ISPs in the UK in my youth and was involved in 3 projects to get it off the ground for residential.  It never saw real use and most of the usage was business to business only with the exception of some early testers and people who enjoyed a £100 a month maintenance cost.

[Alex Atkin UK]

Indeed.  I asked my ISP (Zen) one of the more expensive residential ones, and they don't do bonding.  The only one in the UK I know of that does (AAISP) is WAY more expensive as they still have data caps, making the whole procedure pointless.

 

The only other alternative I have heard of are VPNs that let you make two connections and then bond together.  But as far as I can tell, that can only be done in software not on the router, which sucks.

[mynameisjuan]

25 minutes ago, Falconevo said:

 

Bonding is ISP specific and will require additional cost for him also, it's not done for free and the costs will be significantly increased over just 2 individual adsl lines

-So is two ISP connections...what point are you trying to make here

 

will need to support multi-link PPP

-In your situation, yes. Mine, no.

 

25 minutes ago, Falconevo said:

It never saw real use and most of the usage was business to business

There the problem. This isnt a business. This is a guy at home wanting more speed. 

 

We have 3 different DSL access platforms. All you do just give the customer the second pair, enable bonding in the access card on the ports, enable bonding on the modem and boom you're in business. I am not sure why you are making this so complex. Its not difficult. I am a network engineer for an ISP, I have done it, dont over complicate things. 

 

Also most ISPs wont charge full for a second connection and have bonded packages because its still a single connection. We do it and pricing is similar to all our 3 competitors. Maybe its different in the UK but I wouldnt know.

 

You have to take your business experience out of this example. You are getting in way too deep for a dude that just wants more speed.

[Alex Atkin UK]

The cost for bonding would likely be two BUSINESS connections + bonding (if they charge extra, I wouldn't be shocked if they did) vs two residential connections.  As such it could cost twice as much or more, that's the point.

 

If you work at an ISP that does it reasonable then well done, this certainly doesn't seem to be the case in the UK and I doubt it is somewhere that is still stuck with ADSL.

[mynameisjuan]

6 minutes ago, Alex Atkin UK said:

The cost for bonding would likely be two BUSINESS connections + bonding (if they charge extra, I wouldn't be shocked if they did) vs two residential connections.  As such it could cost twice as much or more, that's the point.

 

If you work at an ISP that does it reasonable then well done, this certainly doesn't seem to be the case in the UK and I doubt it is somewhere that is still stuck with ADSL.

Any ISP with that model for DSL would have to be idiotic. DSL is already a hard sell. At least us and 3 other ISP are just giving customers best effort max speeds for each connection at a single price while we try to rip DSL out as fast as possible. 

 

I am sorry if the UK is like that and fuck them for being like that. 

[Windows7ge]

6 hours ago, saur0 said:

The 3rd port can be configured as either a second lan or wan port as far as I can tell.

I can't say no because I haven't worked with it but giving the user the ability to completely repurpose the console port sounds like an unusual unlikely feature.

[Falconevo]

23 hours ago, mynameisjuan said:

Bonding is ISP specific and will require additional cost for him also, it's not done for free and the costs will be significantly increased over just 2 individual adsl lines

-So is two ISP connections...what point are you trying to make here

 

will need to support multi-link PPP

-In your situation, yes. Mine, no.

 

 There the problem. This isnt a business. This is a guy at home wanting more speed. 

 

We have 3 different DSL access platforms. All you do just give the customer the second pair, enable bonding in the access card on the ports, enable bonding on the modem and boom you're in business. I am not sure why you are making this so complex. Its not difficult. I am a network engineer for an ISP, I have done it, dont over complicate things. 

  

Also most ISPs wont charge full for a second connection and have bonded packages because its still a single connection. We do it and pricing is similar to all our 3 competitors. Maybe its different in the UK but I wouldnt know.

 

You have to take your business experience out of this example. You are getting in way too deep for a dude that just wants more speed.

You don't live in the UK or have been part of any UK ISP's or networks, fortunately I have.  It doesn't matter what you do where you live this guy is asking about the UK which you haven't a clue on.  The DSL equipment (outside of LLU (local loop unbundling) in exchanges is typically owned by British Telecom/Openreach (BT) and they ONLY support dsl bonding with MLPPP and provide no alternative for vendors to package as an option for consumers.  There are NO residential offerings for this service, it was only targeted at business to business with the exception of some residential testing and people who had more money than sense who didn't mind the £100+ a month subscription costs in addition to their normal service and line rental charges.

Even the LLU (local loop unbundling) using their own MSAN's (Multi Service Access Node) didn't have support outside of MLPPP, it wasn't present as the MSAN's that the LLU providers used because they all used the same equipment (Marconi) as BT with an exception being VodaPhone who used an alternate manufacturer which I think was Huawei but I wouldn't quote me on that as it's been 5+ years since I was inside a BT exchange.

 

With that in mind, I advised there are ways to do it but it will require him to utilise and manage the load balancing himself with a custom router rather than having the ISP do the management, balancing and routing.  You can get all uppity about what you can provide outside of the UK, I'm making you aware that BT made a lot of heavy handed decisions which lead to a pretty restrictive and stagnant adsl offering in the UK.  Maybe english isn't your first language (which is not an issue btw) but you quoted me on a statement I advised him that bonded DSL in the UK was mostly business to business.  I didn't say he was a business I'm more than aware he's a residential customer so please read before misquoting me.

[AA-Andrew]

On 11/27/2018 at 1:54 AM, Falconevo said:

Bonding is ISP specific and will require additional cost for him also, it's not done for free and the costs will be significantly increased over just 2 individual adsl lines as they will need to support multi-link PPP.  In fact the only ISP in the UK I know that still takes this seriously is AAISP and I don't think they use multi-link PPP and just balance with their own custom linux based router.

Bonded dsl using MLPPP in the UK is absolutely piss poor, it never got the love it deserved from ISPs.  I know as I worked for around 5 of the major dsl ISPs in the UK in my youth and was involved in 3 projects to get it off the ground for residential.  It never saw real use and most of the usage was business to business only with the exception of some early testers and people who enjoyed a £100 a month maintenance cost.

Yes AAISP (who I work for) has been doing bonding since the early days of ADSL1... we don't do Multilink PPP, but simple packet based - so we can bond multiple lines and your download and upload speed can be the combined speed to all the lines.  More info https://support.aa.net.uk/Category:Bonding 

 

We don't charge extra to bond multiple lines, you just need the lines from us.

 

We also make hardware that can do bonding and failover - it's more aimed (price-wise) at small businesses, we we do have many residential customers using our FireBrick routers.

 

Not really wanting to make this a sales pitch - but hopefully offering some technical advice.

[mynameisjuan]

21 hours ago, AA-Andrew said:

Yes AAISP (who I work for) has been doing bonding since the early days of ADSL1... we don't do Multilink PPP, but simple packet based - so we can bond multiple lines and your download and upload speed can be the combined speed to all the lines.  More info https://support.aa.net.uk/Category:Bonding 

 

We don't charge extra to bond multiple lines, you just need the lines from us.

 

We also make hardware that can do bonding and failover - it's more aimed (price-wise) at small businesses, we we do have many residential customers using our FireBrick routers.

 

Not really wanting to make this a sales pitch - but hopefully offering some technical advice.

Thats exactly how we do it

[Alex Atkin UK]

1 hour ago, mynameisjuan said:

Thats exactly how we do it

 

So is it basically giving you a block of IP addresses where one of them is the destination and the others are used as multiple routes back to the main WAN IP?  (thus avoiding switching IPs all the time like DIY load-balancing would do)

 

If so while that's a decent implementation, its surely expensive due from an ISPs point of view due to the lack of IPv4 addresses these days.

[mynameisjuan]

16 minutes ago, Alex Atkin UK said:

 

So is it basically giving you a block of IP addresses where one of them is the destination and the others are used as multiple routes back to the main WAN IP?  (thus avoiding switching IPs all the time like DIY load-balancing would do)

 

If so while that's a decent implementation, its surely expensive due from an ISPs point of view due to the lack of IPv4 addresses these days.

No. The access platform bonds the two pairs which is essentially split horizon, combining them at the modem. This is true bonding and only 1 IP is needed. 

 

Also lack of IPs is not a problem for us. 

[Alex Atkin UK]

Is there a specific name for this technology?  I'm curious what routers could handle it as the FireBricks AFAIK are quite specialised for low-level filtering.

[mynameisjuan]

31 minutes ago, Alex Atkin UK said:

Is there a specific name for this technology?  I'm curious what routers could handle it as the FireBricks AFAIK are quite specialised for low-level filtering.

Its nothing specific, its just a bonding group. Just make sure the modem supports bonding and you are good to go. Performs as if it was a single pair.