Cisco 1700 ADSL

Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
5,299
I've got one of these knocking around at home. If I grabbed another dsl wic for it, could I load balance across two lines?

I'm thinking this should work but I can't find any supporting documentation on cisco.com for it or, indeed, anywhere else...
 
Soldato
OP
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
5,299
Wouldn't that be bonded rather than load balanced?

Yeh, I'm not looking to bond. I reckon I can get away with two gateways on the same metric. I suspect there's no documentation so as to push sales at the 1800/2800 series.
BT rejected my order because of a postcode mismatch *sigh* but I'll keep ya posted.
 
Soldato
Joined
6 Sep 2008
Posts
3,974
Location
By the sea, West Sussex
I wouldn't say fine, but it does work of sorts.

UDP traffic gets very quickly confused and you'll lose packets, making VoIP/Gaming/FTP pretty much useless. Secure internet traffic (HTTPS) gets screwed up too as it starts seeing data from 2 IP addresses and thinks it's being comprimised and bombs out.

I used to have plenty of other problems too, some you could work around with routing tables on the PC, some you had to live with.

It's interesting to have a play with so long as you are not expecting to get a sudden doubling in speed with no side affects.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
30 Jun 2005
Posts
9,515
Location
London Town!
Having tested this extensively when I worked for an ISP who wanted to offer a solution based along these lines, the basic version is, all the options are rubbish...

round robin doesn't work properly, breaks some traffic, causes horrific jitter and is generally as rubbish as you'd expect it to be...

line bonding was a nightmare and I quite understand why most ISPs can't be bothered offering it. I won't go into the specific issues as nobody will understand I suspect but suffice to say it was worth the effort by a long way

The only option which even half worked was load balancing between two tunnel based VPNs, one over each connection, terminating on a router in the datacenter and piped out from there. I had that setup at home for a while before I moved but commercially it was too expensive to be worth considering...and jitter was still an issue...
 
Soldato
Joined
5 May 2003
Posts
4,515
Location
UK
Pete,

I have it working with 3 different providers with a Watchguard Firebox. I haven't noticed any issues, and failover generally takes 1-2 seconds if a line goes down. If I look at the current connections it generally splits the load 1/3 (round robin doing it's thing).

We don't have any site to site VPNs anymore, although we have home users using PPTP VPN, including myself (I use it pretty frequently).

This is a supported method from watchguard.
 
Soldato
Joined
5 May 2003
Posts
4,515
Location
UK
4 port, 3 WAN, 1 trusted.

Had it up and running for a couple of months now (used to run cisco pix 501s at 3 sites w/VPN). I'm very impressed with the Firebox.
 
Soldato
Joined
6 Sep 2008
Posts
3,974
Location
By the sea, West Sussex
So this is very different from a Cisco with multiple WICs.

These Ciscos can only do per-session or per-packet load balancing, each having it's own advantage and disadvantages. Pre-session is most compatible, but it can only use 1 line so single session downloads didn't benefit from the extra line making it pretty pointless. Per-packet used both lines but gave me the problems I experienced.

It was a cheap and dirty way of doing it and it kinda worked, but ho hum.

On the Firebox front, when it I got my 1841 I retired my old Firebox III/1000.
The support contract was well out of date and I couldn't get anymore updates for it.... however I've just found out that you can put pfsense on an X500 / X700. There are loads of them going cheap on the bay due to them being out of contract too.... can you see where this is going??
 
Back
Top Bottom