41–50 of 148 posts
I don't see any benchmarks, did I miss them? I suspect this doesn't double bandwidth, the packets all end up over the same neighborhood network. The only way it would increase bandwidth is if it evades artificial throttles. Having two connections to the same (neighborhood) pipe seems useless.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The author is doing this against his neighbour's modem. He isn't connecting to the same modem twice. You seem to be dripping misplaced condescension all over the floor - would you like me to fetch a mop?
I'd suggest you reread the article.
+----------------------+
| |
+-----------> | Neighbor's router |
| | |
+-----------+ +------------------+ | +----------------------+
| | | | +
| OP's PC +----> | Buffalo Router | +----------------------+
| | | | + | |
+-----------+ +------------------+ | | OP Comcast connection|
+-----------> | |
+----------------------+
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can if you use the neighbor's guest connection.
The author doesn't implicitly state this, only that his neighbor also has it. You're still failing to understand that a $50 SOHO router has a cheap transceiver and getting to your neighbors guest network is far more latent and prone to dropped packets and errors due to the distance. Also the embedded transceiver in the cable modem is competing with a lot of local RF from the cable modem. Again, he's not doubling his…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd suggest you reread the article.
Why don't you? From the article: When you rent a cable modem/router combo from Comcast (as one of my nearby neighbors apparently does) The article definitely implies that he's connecting to his neighbour's Comcast router.
Think of it this way. When you stream a movie from Netflix it is one TCP session. Not 5, 10, etc. So if you load balance to your neighbor your stream will be worse by default. This is not equal cost load balancing, this is a hack that isn't what it seems and there are a lot of people commenting that have, apparently, little to no knowledge about basic network fundamentals.
Try it and prove you've doubled your bandwidth. There are tens of logical reasons why this doesn't work.
So it requires access to a second wireless network, as well as a router that supports OpenWRT and has two radios. I don't see anything particularly noteworthy here. He just happens to have a very specific setup and is leveraging it.
Does anyone know if this OpenWRT works? I would love to push my speed to its limits. Comcast pretty much has a monopoly in my city and they are not very helpful.
What the author doesn't realize is he's doubled nothing. DOCCIS networks are shared mediums. That means you have to double bandwidth by increasing the number of channels you have. Newer DOCCIS modema are already bonding channels today. Most commonly 4 channel bond on the downstream and 2 on the up. By connecting to the cable modem twice, via two different routes, does nothing to change the available bandwidth availab…
I'm a big fan of my TP-Link WDR4300. I can easily max out my 250/60Mbps uplink while it's also doing NAT and some light firewalling, in software. It also runs all of my IPAM (DHCP/DNS). Additionally, it also runs OpenVPN (and can do ~20Mbps of encrypted bandwidth) and a BGP session (using Quagga) over that VPN to my local hackerspace. All in a single OpenWRT device that's sub $70.
Is it equivalent in performance to a hardware router? Of course not. But these start at a few thousand dollars (even Cisco ASA and Juniper SRX class hardware does its routing in software...).
Am I the only one that sees missing letters? http://s2.postimg.org/vpba0a1wp/image.png
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why don't you? From the article: When you rent a cable modem/router combo from Comcast (as one of my nearby neighbors apparently does) The article definitely implies that he's connecting to his neighbour's Comcast router.
As stated above even if he is doing that its implied, not a direct statement. Assume away. Also, doing this will actually make your connection worse as that connection will always be more latent. Think of it this way. When you stream a movie from Netflix it is one TCP session. Not 5, 10, etc. So if you load balance to your neighbor your stream will be worse by default. This is not equal cost load balancing, this is a…
Like others have pointed out, Linux doesn't load balance a single connection over multiple WANs, so as long as the Netflix stream gets on the best link, it'll be better since it'll have to compete with fewer connections (since some will be routed over the other link).