Outgoing Load balance with x2 ADSL

I am looking to leave Pipex due to the recent decline in service; I have been with them for 7 years. Poor performance (which seems widespread) in the evenings (even for my 1MB connection) I think are partly Pipex and partly BT 's (?IPStream) fault so I am considering two ADSL lines. Currently my exchange has no LLU but in May Be are going to enable it so I am considering changing to Zen for current line and a second line in May with Be/ADSL2+. Currently my ADSL modem router is a DLink DSL-504 which is old but has been amazingly reliable. My queries relate to hardware to load balance (?outgoing stream i.e. requests from inside the LAN to internet). I am aware that this is not bonding and do not wish to consider bonding.

There seem a number of SoHo hardware solutions

Hi Paul,

You don't need any knowledge of Linux to run the Bonded CD, it has a web based interface, and some very basic config files you put on a floppy. Full instructions are provided, and we offer free telephone support as an Upstream customer if you get stuck.

Also re the cost of the PCI cards they are free at the moment with our January offer
http://www.upstreaminter.net/january_2007.shtml

If you are particularly interested in outgoing traffic MLPPP works brilliantly, better than load balancing in my opinion if you want to increase your throughput.

Also here's a recent testimonial from a customer:
http://bbs.adslguide.org.uk/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Board=whichbusinessisp&Number=2869278

Feel free to give me a call 0845 299 0265 if you'd like to discuss or have any questions.

Eddie

Edited by eddiec (Sat 27-Jan-07 12:11:17)

I'm using the Neteyes Cyclone 200, which is the previous model to the NETWalker Agile 200, and is very similar. In my setup, I have two Speedtouch 546 modems which operate in normal NAT mode. The Cyclone 200 also uses NAT (running in "double NAT" mode), but I can also use the Multi-DMZ function on the Cyclone, which effectively directly links an internal IP address on my local network with an external IP (my ISP provides 8 IP's as standard on each line, so I have 10 to effectively use).

Of course, load balancing only works when in double-NAT'ing mode. To make the best use of the load balancing on downloads requires some sort of download acceleration software like ReGet which uses multi-threading. Load balancing won't work with things like video streaming, which uses only one thread.

Thanks for the time and answer. You are the first place where I have seen double NAT recommended - but then nobody has commenetd on using the DMZ in this way. You imply that load balancing will not work in download mode unless I add some 3rd party tool. This is not something I have seen mentioned and is not mentioned in technical spec for the Netwalker 200 - in deeed their site makes a large play of mutli homing which I presume the Netwalker has, would this supercede your comments about the inability to ise load balancing and download and need for 3rd party ReGet. have I misunderstood?

Thanks for the info about Upstream and Bonding and I have certainly been considering it as setup with CD looked the simplest. Part of the attraction of load balancing on two separate ISPs was that I could have one LLU and one IPStream to help redundancy.

None of these types of routers seem to have the ability to split a single thread download (either by HTTP or by FTP) across the two lines. However, download utilities like ReGet, Get Right, etc can spilit a large file into lots of smaller threads which will be usable by the router to split the load. Web pages consist of a number of different files, so these too will be load-balanced. If I click on a you-tube or other streaming video on a web page, the load-balancing router always routes this through WAN1, so no load balancing takes place.

Incidentally, I have now received details from a friend who has just received a load balancing router from the US. He purchased a XinCOM Twin WAN Router XC-DPG502 from www.provantage.com which cost him $149.84 + $45.55 shipping (which works out at about

Edited by deleted (Mon 29-Jan-07 15:20:35)

Thanks for the information. I had assumed that spitting the load by packets or bytes would have split most protocols apart from those such as SSL which need a specific constant IP. Currently I use FDM which does the same thing in terms of stream and guess this would further enhance the load balancing.

Take a look at the review of the Cyclone 200 in the reviews section of the website. Unfortunately most (if not all) load-splitters in this price range work like this.