30M : Virgin 2 way splitter

[Sephiroth]

Adduxi has done what yu're talking about. Look him up and find the thread/posts.

And yes - modem mode is advised because you don't want the SH(s) doing NAT). Bridge mode AP into your load balancing router wil provide wireless if the router itself doesn't.

[General Maximus]

although downloads are going to be done in no time at all, the thing I would be getting excited about is 24mbits upload speed

Well yes General there is that

And thanks Seph, made interesting breakfast reading

[Sephiroth]

When I move to this shortly, it'll be VM XXL load balanced with BT Infinity. I've no intention of bonding these services so that a single session is split between the two ISPs. It strikes me as being a bit of a minefield. I would load balance sessions onto different ISPs.

If I had two VM circuits, would I do that (splitting sessions across two circuits)? I'd try it to see if I can get 24 meg upload; my curiosity would get the better of me.

It's getting the better of me too. There are 3 possible speed outcomes either way (unless I have got this all wrong based on load balancing)

1. 240 down
2.192 down if 1 is stm'd
3. 144 down if both stm's

1.say 22 up (i've never got more than 11 up anyway)
2.15 up if some is STM'd
3.around 9-10 if both are.

[qasdfdsaq]

Load balancing on consumer connections won't allow you to bond the two connections and combine the speed without you paying for a commercial endpoint at the other end. Thus you get two connections with the individual speed limits of each line, and will need to be doing that many things simultaneously to utilize the combined speed.

i.e. one download = 120Mbps, two downloads 2x120Mbps. One download split into two parts with a download manager = 240Mbps if you're lucky.

Similarly, you won't be able to send a 24Mbps HD video stream from your machine to elsewhere, but you can send 2x12Mbps streams. At least not without some dirty hacks.

Oh I see, it's never as straight forward as first told is it!

[ferretuk]

A potential 'gotcha' you should be aware of is the need to configure your router to only use one link for some sites. You'll find that connections to secure sites will be problematic if traffic from you to them swaps around between links...

[Kushan]

Yeah, there's a whole bunch of potential issues that might come from it. Some sites hate you changing IP address a lot as well (Which is how it'll look to them). For stuff like newsgroups or torrents though, you'd be flying.

Cheers guys for the advice. I don't do newsgroups and I have no idea what a torrent is but I will google both of them.

My other half will know more than me. I thought the load balancer might give a new IP like some access points do?

[Kushan]

That's essentially it, you've got two completely separate connections, with two independent IP addresses coming in. Your load balancer will just switch between each one every time you create a new connection (Which means every time you click a link on a site or download a file or open up an application or game). So no single connection can go faster than the fastest single line, you only benefit from downloading multiple things at once.

Load balancing isn't perfect, either, some sites and services will refuse to work with it and depending on how you do it, you might not get an even 50/50 split all the time.

[ferretuk]

I think it would be worth describing what you think the benefits of two connections are... Personally I think you're wasting money on something that won't actually help

I dont think i go to any sites that would care about my IP. any banking I do on my phone.

Ive asked Adduxi how they are getting on with it.

So if I was to download 1 file and it came down full speed of 1 line I wouldn't get more speed until I downloaded something else at the same time?

Like this usergroups Kushan talked about? (i'm reading up on it now)

Or say I wanted to get a game from steam? that would be 1 line only? but if I did 2 it would be both?

[adduxi]

Guys,

Don't get too excited about what I'm at. Yes, I have a dual WAN router, taking VM and BT together, but it does NOT BOND. It does allow multiple devices to use both ISP's at once, but does not allow for one device to be on one site and use both ISP's.
It will allow use of both ISP concurrently, and load balances with a ratio of VM to BT WAN supplies. Sort of if VM is 100 and BT is 50 then the balance is approx 2:1 if that makes sense?
It will also do failover in the event of one ISP going down.

Sorry if this seems a bit vague, but I'm not the best at getting this over

After postings from Quasi, I did question my decision with the TP-Link, but configuring DDWRT onto a DLink was just a step too far.
I had already discounted pfSense as it needs a server to run on.
At the end of the day, I'm happy with what I have and it really was a plug and play, easy to use, solution

[Sephiroth]

I am going to follow the Adduxi route. Maybe with a different router - I'm researching that.