<div dir="ltr">Do you control the bare copper at each end? Adtran as a product called "ActivReach" which delivers up to 100Mbit POE over CAT3 style wiring. Speed varies depending on the number of pairs and the distance.<div><br></div><div><a href="https://www.adtran.com/web/page/portal/Adtran/group/4396">https://www.adtran.com/web/page/portal/Adtran/group/4396</a><br></div><div><br></div><div>"Data connectivity of 10/100 Mbps over one, two, or four pair of voice-grade cabling (ActivReach mode)"</div><div><br></div><div>John</div><div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 11:59 AM, Brock Wolfe <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:obwolfe@shaw.ca" target="_blank">obwolfe@shaw.ca</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Are there any reasons for not considering commercial (backbone) wireless gear for connecting points. It is a common practice for multi-building sites where project funds (or other constraints) prevent wired/fibre connections between buildings.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 9/29/2015 10:48 AM, <a href="mailto:roundtable-request@muug.mb.ca" target="_blank">roundtable-request@muug.mb.ca</a> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Send Roundtable mailing list submissions to<br>
<a href="mailto:roundtable@muug.mb.ca" target="_blank">roundtable@muug.mb.ca</a><br>
<br>
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit<br>
<a href="http://www.muug.mb.ca/mailman/listinfo/roundtable" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.muug.mb.ca/mailman/listinfo/roundtable</a><br>
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to<br>
<a href="mailto:roundtable-request@muug.mb.ca" target="_blank">roundtable-request@muug.mb.ca</a><br>
<br>
You can reach the person managing the list at<br>
<a href="mailto:roundtable-owner@muug.mb.ca" target="_blank">roundtable-owner@muug.mb.ca</a><br>
<br>
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific<br>
than "Re: Contents of Roundtable digest..."<br>
<br>
<br>
Today's Topics:<br>
<br>
1. aggregating dsl lines (Trevor Cordes)<br>
2. Re: aggregating dsl lines (Colin Stanners)<br>
3. Re: aggregating dsl lines (Robert Keizer)<br>
4. Re: aggregating dsl lines (Adam Thompson)<br>
5. Re: aggregating dsl lines (Adam Thompson)<br>
<br>
<br>
----------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 1<br>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 04:18:54 -0500<br>
From: Trevor Cordes <<a href="mailto:trevor@tecnopolis.ca" target="_blank">trevor@tecnopolis.ca</a>><br>
To: MUUG RndTbl <<a href="mailto:roundtable@muug.mb.ca" target="_blank">roundtable@muug.mb.ca</a>><br>
Subject: [RndTbl] aggregating dsl lines<br>
Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:20150929091854.GA13606@pog.tecnopolis.ca" target="_blank">20150929091854.GA13606@pog.tecnopolis.ca</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii<span class=""><br>
<br>
Is it possible to aggregate DSL lines, to combine them to get X-times the<br>
bandwidth on a single link? In this situation, I control both ends, the<br>
DSLAM and the DSL modem side on the other end of some POTS runs (CAT3-ish<br>
I assume, or worse).<br>
<br>
Note, I don't want load balancing or fancy routing/sharing. I need double<br>
(or more) the bandwidth for a single application (single TCP connection).<br>
<br>
If required, we can have linux/bsd boxes we control at either end of the<br>
links.<br>
<br>
If it's not possible, does anyone have any other ideas for somehow getting<br>
better bandwidth out of 500m POTS wires (quantity 4)?<br>
<br>
Thanks!<br>
<br>
<br></span>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 2<br>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 07:09:51 -0500<br>
From: Colin Stanners <<a href="mailto:cstanners@gmail.com" target="_blank">cstanners@gmail.com</a>><br>
To: Continuation of Round Table discussion <<a href="mailto:roundtable@muug.mb.ca" target="_blank">roundtable@muug.mb.ca</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [RndTbl] aggregating dsl lines<br>
Message-ID:<br>
<CAPoOROw+CvZAq_O2T+b0M7zukSEaydm10KzYCd6=<a href="mailto:fougATzkyg@mail.gmail.com" target="_blank">fougATzkyg@mail.gmail.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<span class=""><br>
<br>
At layers 2/3 you can do Multilink PPP or even something wierd and<br>
questionably reliable like LACP over Ethernet-over-IP over the individual<br>
connections, but given that it's only 500m and you control both ends the<br>
best solution would likely be at<br>
<a href="http://www.netsys-direct.com/Ethernet_Extenders_s/1814.htm" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.netsys-direct.com/Ethernet_Extenders_s/1814.htm</a> , particularly<br>
<a href="http://www.netsys-direct.com/product_p/nv-600ekit.htm" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.netsys-direct.com/product_p/nv-600ekit.htm</a><br>
<br></span><span class="">
On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 4:18 AM, Trevor Cordes <<a href="mailto:trevor@tecnopolis.ca" target="_blank">trevor@tecnopolis.ca</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class="">
Is it possible to aggregate DSL lines, to combine them to get X-times the<br>
bandwidth on a single link? In this situation, I control both ends, the<br>
DSLAM and the DSL modem side on the other end of some POTS runs (CAT3-ish<br>
I assume, or worse).<br>
<br>
Note, I don't want load balancing or fancy routing/sharing. I need double<br>
(or more) the bandwidth for a single application (single TCP connection).<br>
<br>
If required, we can have linux/bsd boxes we control at either end of the<br>
links.<br>
<br>
If it's not possible, does anyone have any other ideas for somehow getting<br>
better bandwidth out of 500m POTS wires (quantity 4)?<br>
<br>
Thanks!<br></span><span class="">
_______________________________________________<br>
Roundtable mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Roundtable@muug.mb.ca" target="_blank">Roundtable@muug.mb.ca</a><br>
<a href="http://www.muug.mb.ca/mailman/listinfo/roundtable" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.muug.mb.ca/mailman/listinfo/roundtable</a><br>
<br>
</span></blockquote>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <<a href="http://www.muug.mb.ca/pipermail/roundtable/attachments/20150929/9a5888a9/attachment-0001.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.muug.mb.ca/pipermail/roundtable/attachments/20150929/9a5888a9/attachment-0001.html</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 3<br>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 07:44:25 -0500<br>
From: Robert Keizer <<a href="mailto:robert@keizer.ca" target="_blank">robert@keizer.ca</a>><br>
To: Continuation of Round Table discussion <<a href="mailto:roundtable@muug.mb.ca" target="_blank">roundtable@muug.mb.ca</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [RndTbl] aggregating dsl lines<br>
Message-ID:<br>
<CACf6nbiM=<a href="mailto:q7ww0u4iWscjgP1fG7E81trd1SVqHA_1%2B8pfPANgg@mail.gmail.com" target="_blank">q7ww0u4iWscjgP1fG7E81trd1SVqHA_1+8pfPANgg@mail.gmail.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<span class=""><br>
<br>
If you can put a box at both ends you can do compression between them with<br>
an arbitrary size lookup table that is dynamic based on the traffic.<br>
<br>
To get the single TCP connection going over both you'll need to go up the<br>
stack - PPP or ipsec is what I would go with. You can't get away with a<br>
simple carp system unfortunately.<br>
<br>
Either way I don't see how you don't have ecmp or similar over the lower<br>
link and run a tunnel with IP inside it.<br>
<br>
Rob<br>
On Sep 29, 2015 7:10 AM, "Colin Stanners" <<a href="mailto:cstanners@gmail.com" target="_blank">cstanners@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class="">
At layers 2/3 you can do Multilink PPP or even something wierd and<br>
questionably reliable like LACP over Ethernet-over-IP over the individual<br>
connections, but given that it's only 500m and you control both ends the<br>
best solution would likely be at<br>
<a href="http://www.netsys-direct.com/Ethernet_Extenders_s/1814.htm" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.netsys-direct.com/Ethernet_Extenders_s/1814.htm</a> ,<br>
particularly <a href="http://www.netsys-direct.com/product_p/nv-600ekit.htm" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.netsys-direct.com/product_p/nv-600ekit.htm</a><br>
<br></span>
On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 4:18 AM, Trevor Cordes <<a href="mailto:trevor@tecnopolis.ca" target="_blank">trevor@tecnopolis.ca</a>><br>
wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class="">
Is it possible to aggregate DSL lines, to combine them to get X-times the<br>
bandwidth on a single link? In this situation, I control both ends, the<br>
DSLAM and the DSL modem side on the other end of some POTS runs (CAT3-ish<br>
I assume, or worse).<br>
<br>
Note, I don't want load balancing or fancy routing/sharing. I need double<br>
(or more) the bandwidth for a single application (single TCP connection).<br>
<br>
If required, we can have linux/bsd boxes we control at either end of the<br>
links.<br>
<br>
If it's not possible, does anyone have any other ideas for somehow getting<br>
better bandwidth out of 500m POTS wires (quantity 4)?<br>
<br>
Thanks!<br></span><span class="">
_______________________________________________<br>
Roundtable mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Roundtable@muug.mb.ca" target="_blank">Roundtable@muug.mb.ca</a><br>
<a href="http://www.muug.mb.ca/mailman/listinfo/roundtable" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.muug.mb.ca/mailman/listinfo/roundtable</a><br>
<br>
</span></blockquote><span class="">
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Roundtable mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Roundtable@muug.mb.ca" target="_blank">Roundtable@muug.mb.ca</a><br>
<a href="http://www.muug.mb.ca/mailman/listinfo/roundtable" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.muug.mb.ca/mailman/listinfo/roundtable</a><br>
<br>
<br>
</span></blockquote>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <<a href="http://www.muug.mb.ca/pipermail/roundtable/attachments/20150929/b381c5df/attachment-0001.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.muug.mb.ca/pipermail/roundtable/attachments/20150929/b381c5df/attachment-0001.html</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 4<br>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 08:09:32 -0500<br>
From: Adam Thompson <<a href="mailto:athompso@athompso.net" target="_blank">athompso@athompso.net</a>><br>
To: Continuation of Round Table discussion <<a href="mailto:roundtable@muug.mb.ca" target="_blank">roundtable@muug.mb.ca</a>>,<br>
Trevor Cordes <<a href="mailto:trevor@tecnopolis.ca" target="_blank">trevor@tecnopolis.ca</a>>, MUUG RndTbl<br>
<<a href="mailto:roundtable@muug.mb.ca" target="_blank">roundtable@muug.mb.ca</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [RndTbl] aggregating dsl lines<br>
Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:2F92160B-19B2-43A4-8967-559126E86017@athompso.net" target="_blank">2F92160B-19B2-43A4-8967-559126E86017@athompso.net</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<div><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
This is an active area of research, particularly with the advent of multi-path TCP.<br>
Presently, however, you have to hide the two-link-ness from the TCP layer, and essentially from the IP layer as well.<br>
ECMP would work, as long as both lines are the same (this does not hold true as a dynamic assertion with DSL technology, *ever*).<br>
LACP will *not* work.<br>
If you have Linux boxes at both ends, you can use mod_bonding in its round-robin mode... I've done that in the past and it does work.<br>
<br>
Far more effective, however, would be to upgrade to a symmetric VDSL2 setup that supports DSL bonded pairs.<br>
That'll set you back around $600+ per end, IIRC, replaces both the DSLAM and the DSLR, but makes your problems go away by turning all the copper into a single Ethernet link.<br>
<br>
I just worked with someone else on this kind of setup, I'll see if I can find the links...<br>
<br>
-Adam<br>
<br>
On September 29, 2015 4:18:54 AM CDT, Trevor Cordes <<a href="mailto:trevor@tecnopolis.ca" target="_blank">trevor@tecnopolis.ca</a>> wrote:<br>
</div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><div class="h5">
Is it possible to aggregate DSL lines, to combine them to get X-times<br>
the<br>
bandwidth on a single link? In this situation, I control both ends,<br>
the<br>
DSLAM and the DSL modem side on the other end of some POTS runs<br>
(CAT3-ish<br>
I assume, or worse).<br>
<br>
Note, I don't want load balancing or fancy routing/sharing. I need<br>
double<br>
(or more) the bandwidth for a single application (single TCP<br>
connection).<br>
<br>
If required, we can have linux/bsd boxes we control at either end of<br>
the<br>
links.<br>
<br>
If it's not possible, does anyone have any other ideas for somehow<br>
getting<br>
better bandwidth out of 500m POTS wires (quantity 4)?<br>
<br>
Thanks!<br></div></div><span class="">
_______________________________________________<br>
Roundtable mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Roundtable@muug.mb.ca" target="_blank">Roundtable@muug.mb.ca</a><br>
<a href="http://www.muug.mb.ca/mailman/listinfo/roundtable" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.muug.mb.ca/mailman/listinfo/roundtable</a><br>
</span></blockquote></blockquote><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Roundtable mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Roundtable@muug.mb.ca" target="_blank">Roundtable@muug.mb.ca</a><br>
<a href="http://www.muug.mb.ca/mailman/listinfo/roundtable" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.muug.mb.ca/mailman/listinfo/roundtable</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature">John Lange<br><a href="http://www.johnlange.ca" target="_blank">www.johnlange.ca</a></div>
</div>