From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Grant Taylor <gtaylor@riverviewtech.net>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 15:59:53 +0000
Subject: Re: [LARTC] Redundant internet connections.
Message-Id: <467BF1F9.9050207@riverviewtech.net>
List-Id: <lartc.vger.kernel.org>
References: <467A2354.1070805@riverviewtech.net>
In-Reply-To: <467A2354.1070805@riverviewtech.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
To: lartc@vger.kernel.org

On 06/22/07 09:57, Gustavo Homem wrote:
> I've done this, but I think it's unreliable for professional use. The=20
> USB modems are non-standard so if one burns you can't exchange it for=20
> a different one without feasible but time consuming tweaking (tried=20
> more then one USB devices...).
>=20
> Even for Ethernet briding devices I only use models which are=20
> delivered by ISPs (rather than retail shop devices), to garantee they=20
> were tested for stability:
>=20
> POTS: http://www.huawei.com/products/terminal/products/view.do?id=87
>=20
> ISDN: http://www.acbs-dsl-store.com/contenu/Articles/Article.asp?PdtNum=
=3DDSLGP628LP
>=20
>=20
> These models run forever in bridged mode. The second one accepts=20
> multiple PPPoE clients on different ports.
>=20
>=20
> That's expectable since using PPPoA instead of PPPoEoA, reduces the=20
> overhead. But I don't know a standard PPPoA setup.
>=20
> But if we want QoS working, we can't use the full line capability=20
> anyway.
>=20
> Even if that happens, it would hardly compensate the risk of lower=20
> reliability.

All very valid points and things to consider.  However for a home=20
environment / non critical environment, it provides a lot of potential.



Grant. . . .
_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list
LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc