Re: [LARTC] Per-connection routing for multiple uplinks/providers

[Bob Gustafson <bobgus@mcs.net>]

Don Cohen writes:
>Bob Gustafson writes:
> > But, But, - this is really just software. We are not trying to cram wine
> > bottles down the internet pipe (although many would really like to do
> > that!).
>
>The limitations I point out are inherent in tcp/ip.

Yes, there are limitations in tcp/ip..

>
> > >From the requestee point of view, I know how much bandwidth I need to
> > listen to the BBC newscast, or to a company conference call. I can also
> > request email and ftp sessions to work in the 'background' at a lower
> > bandwidth allocation (cost?), but if I am talking to someone interactively,
> > it would be nice if my packets were transferred at a regular rate without
> > jitter or delay. IP doesn't do this, and one can argue that it cannot. But,
> > the whole thing is run by software and software can change.
>
>All of the things above can already be done on a single link.

With IP, to get decent QoS, you need a bit of excess bandwidth on the
connection. With contention for the pipe at any point in the path from
sender to receiver, the connection reverts to a 'best efforts' un-policed
connection.

Hmm, maybe I'm wandering into the Pub wearing a weird hat. After all, this
is the Lartc mail list.

>What cannot be done is make two links work like one with the
>sum of the bandwidth.

I can see your point. I didn't say that it was going to be easy.

=
I just 'measured' my DSL bandwidth at 632 kbits/sec and my Cable bandwidth
at 897 kbits/sec  (using bandwidthplace.com)
=

BobG
_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/