<< | Thread Index | >> ]    [ << | Date Index | >> ]

Subject: Re: CIPE and multiple Internet Connections?????
From: Kai Dittmann <kd-news,AT,devnull,DOT,de>
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 17:08:57 +0200
In-reply-to: <20020619214331.59229.qmail@web12103.mail.yahoo.com>

At 14:43 19.06.2002 -0700, you wrote:
>Can I configure Cipe to use multiple internet
>connections?  For example, if I have a DSL and Cable
>modem connection can I use both?  If I had 256k upload
>on both, would I now have 512k?

        ...no, you would'nt have a 'cummulated' bandwith.

        simply, each 'uplink' to your provider(s) has different
        ip's from different ip-aggregates (different routing-pathes,
        different as'es, different providers.....)

        sure, you can bind cipe to maybe a third interface
        (the inner one of your router, with the appropirate
         nat/fw-rules)

        but you can't route the traffic to both external-if's
        to use a accumulated bandwith of both links.

        it's a routing decision taken by your router's default
        route, or by your own handmade (static) routing-table.

        the traffic of any cipe-tunnel has to go throug one
        interface, and the traffic back to your node has to
        go 'virtually' the same way back... standart ip-routing
        (except assymetric-routing, but this is mostly a faulty
        configuration/routing-table at your providers network) 

        the one and only way to do this is policy-routing, but this
        'feature' is not possible with a cipe-connection, because,
        the traffic-type of a cipe-tunnel is always the same, due
        to the fact, that the content of each packet is encrypted.

        policy-routing with traffic sorta like ftp or http can be
        routed trough different links only if the router 'see's'
        the 'traffic-type' so that the router can choose from a 
        preconfigured table which link the traffic should be routed
        to.

        why don't take two tunnels, one on each link, well it will end's
        up in a 'ugly_configurationmadness' to get up a usable routing
        between one endpoint and the both tunnels to use the full bw ;-)

        ...assumed that the tunnel-peer on the single-end has enough
        bandwith to fill up both tunnels... but this is another story...

cheers,
-.-

(p.s.  tdsl + ish/cablecom ?)





<< | Thread Index | >> ]    [ << | Date Index | >> ]