Your Universal Remote Control Center
RemoteCentral.com
Custom Installers' Lounge Forum - View Post
Previous section Next section Previous page Next page Up level
Up level
The following page was printed from RemoteCentral.com:

Login:
Pass:
 
 

Page 1 of 2
Topic:
Have you ever had to load balance two crappy ISP's into one router.
This thread has 18 replies. Displaying posts 1 through 15.
Post 1 made on Saturday July 27, 2019 at 10:49
andrewinboulder
Select Member
Joined:
Posts:
August 2003
1,518
Has anyone used a load balancing router with two WAN connections to try to increase overall internet speeds to a clients home? I'm talking "combining" the two ISP's, not as a fail over.

Customer is in an urban area - their current ISP is Ok during the day, but at night speeds drop way down when everyone starts streaming. I'm hoping I can boost their overall speeds by adding another slower DSL based ISP that is available.

I have an Araknis 300 series router in the system, but apparently the second WAN port is not active until a firmware update. I asked Snap if this type of load balancing would be available, but they did not seem to know.

Might give these guys a call:

https://www.untangle.com/shop/WAN-Balancer/
Post 2 made on Saturday July 27, 2019 at 13:10
tweeterguy
Loyal Member
Joined:
Posts:
June 2005
7,713
So you’re existing router is out; I’d wager when WAN2 comes active it’s going to be a failover not a load balance, as that’s what Pakedge does too. I have a Peplink Balance series router in place at a vacation home with dual ISP; works well. I’d suggest calling them with your concerns and requirements.
Post 3 made on Saturday July 27, 2019 at 15:32
buzz
Super Member
Joined:
Posts:
May 2003
4,366
I'm curious how this load balance works. Would network client A be assigned to WAN1 while network client B is assigned to WAN2? Or would destination site 'C' be assigned to WAN1 while destination site 'D' is assigned to WAN2 regardless of local network client? Or, would there be finer granularity, perhaps flipping WAN ports on every request or a scheme based on latency?

I can imagine that rapidly flipping WAN ports would frustrate secure applications, such as accessing one's bank account. How does this work with a DMZ that is required for a video game?
Post 4 made on Saturday July 27, 2019 at 22:23
iform
Advanced Member
Joined:
Posts:
September 2010
760
Apparently, load balancing only works with 2 or more users. It won't see double the speed with one user.
Post 5 made on Saturday July 27, 2019 at 23:18
Ernie Gilman
Yes, That Ernie!
Joined:
Posts:
December 2001
30,104
Is that because, say, balancing of more than one load cannot happen from only one MAC address?

It would be a pity to have a router that requires two or more users to balance... that means that one computer would be unused, while a second one that's being challenged to the hilt gets no advantage from the router's ability to balance the load.

Please explain what I obviously don't understand about this.

Thank you.
A good answer is easier with a clear question giving the make and model of everything.
"The biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place." -- G. “Bernie” Shaw
Post 6 made on Sunday July 28, 2019 at 11:31
buzz
Super Member
Joined:
Posts:
May 2003
4,366
On a practical basis for modern networks, it is very likely that there will be multiple clients. While I don't think it matters much if all of the Cloud managed thermostats pile up on one WAN port, splitting a video streamer from the web browser would be an advantage.
Post 7 made on Sunday July 28, 2019 at 12:11
tweeterguy
Loyal Member
Joined:
Posts:
June 2005
7,713
I suppose we are discussing differing concepts. The OP mentions load balancing. That’s what we are doing with the Peplink where web/email/streaming audio is handled by one link and online gaming and streaming video is handled by another link, while both are accessible on the LAN by the control system. That’s the extent of my knowledge of the setup. The conversation was literally this with my IT guy “I want dual WAN, with certain devices accessing each WAN but all accessible to each other on the LAN”. He came up with the rest.

Maybe what’s being confused here what is similarly done in some rural areas where DSL is often the only choice you can sometimes bond two pairs. I am not sure if the Peplink device can do that (usually handled on the ISP side); maybe it can, hence the recommendation to contact their support team.
Post 8 made on Sunday July 28, 2019 at 12:56
buzz
Super Member
Joined:
Posts:
May 2003
4,366
Wouldn't bonding two connections be done by the modem and back at the ISP?
Post 9 made on Sunday July 28, 2019 at 13:24
edizzle
Loyal Member
Joined:
Posts:
March 2005
5,916
On July 28, 2019 at 12:56, buzz said...
Wouldn't bonding two connections be done by the modem and back at the ISP?

this is not bonding.
I love supporting product that supports me!
Post 10 made on Sunday July 28, 2019 at 18:29
buzz
Super Member
Joined:
Posts:
May 2003
4,366
Probably not for the feint of heart, but MPLS with this router might be an option. (at minimal hardware costs)
Post 11 made on Monday July 29, 2019 at 10:47
TAAVS
Long Time Member
Joined:
Posts:
September 2003
178
Use one of these: [Link: synology.com]
Post 12 made on Monday July 29, 2019 at 15:09
dsp81
Advanced Member
Joined:
Posts:
October 2007
782
On July 28, 2019 at 18:29, buzz said...
Probably not for the feint of heart, but MPLS with this router might be an option. (at minimal hardware costs)

MPLS circuits will be substantially more expensive than IP delivered Internet. MPLS is generally used for private networks with geographically diverse locations. It enables carriers to send traffic across their network irrespective of the medium (T1, Ethernet, etc). Combined with virtual routing and forwarding, the customer only sees their own secure, private network.

You can do load sharing with BGP, but that is almost certainly more than this requires. With BGP you would advertise your network prefix out to both carriers and downstream providers would route back to your network based on BGP metrics. That’s not balancing because one carrier could have better metrics than the other.

For this type of load balancing, both carriers have unique IPs so it doesn’t work like BGP. The traffic will be routed out to a carrier based on the load sharing algorithm you select (or that is selected for you). In most cases these routers will load share per-session. You won’t go out one carrier and back in another because the originating IP for each carrier is different. All the traffic from that session stays on one carrier. Thats why it’s normally called load sharing, not load balancing. You won’t generally see the load perfectly balanced between carriers. One user could be killing a circuit for all the other users on that circuit. Meanwhile, the users on the other circuit don’t notice any problems.

Last edited by dsp81 on July 29, 2019 15:19.
OP | Post 13 made on Wednesday July 31, 2019 at 17:08
andrewinboulder
Select Member
Joined:
Posts:
August 2003
1,518
On July 29, 2019 at 15:09, dsp81 said...
MPLS circuits will be substantially more expensive than IP delivered Internet. MPLS is generally used for private networks with geographically diverse locations. It enables carriers to send traffic across their network irrespective of the medium (T1, Ethernet, etc). Combined with virtual routing and forwarding, the customer only sees their own secure, private network.

You can do load sharing with BGP, but that is almost certainly more than this requires. With BGP you would advertise your network prefix out to both carriers and downstream providers would route back to your network based on BGP metrics. That’s not balancing because one carrier could have better metrics than the other.

For this type of load balancing, both carriers have unique IPs so it doesn’t work like BGP. The traffic will be routed out to a carrier based on the load sharing algorithm you select (or that is selected for you). In most cases these routers will load share per-session. You won’t go out one carrier and back in another because the originating IP for each carrier is different. All the traffic from that session stays on one carrier. Thats why it’s normally called load sharing, not load balancing. You won’t generally see the load perfectly balanced between carriers. One user could be killing a circuit for all the other users on that circuit. Meanwhile, the users on the other circuit don’t notice any problems.

So is there any gear to accomplish this that you like?
Post 14 made on Sunday August 4, 2019 at 01:20
dsp81
Advanced Member
Joined:
Posts:
October 2007
782
On July 31, 2019 at 17:08, andrewinboulder said...
So is there any gear to accomplish this that you like?

I deal mainly with BGP load sharing and use Cisco ASR and ISR routers. I’m guessing that your customer has two standard internet circuits and they aren’t doing BGP. There’s probably quite a few options, but it depends on the application. How large is the user base? Do you need a UTM device? If this is a small business, it looks like the Peplink mentioned above will load balance. Sonicwall also has options starting with the TZ300. Ubiquiti says the USGs will load balance but I’ve read it is not stable.
Post 15 made on Monday August 5, 2019 at 10:02
emerlin
Long Time Member
Joined:
Posts:
July 2002
128
On July 28, 2019 at 18:29, buzz said...
Probably not for the feint of heart, but MPLS with this router might be an option. (at minimal hardware costs)

I concur on both counts. I do not agree that it has to be substantially more expensive, unless you use Cisco...
Page 1 of 2


Jump to


Protected Feature Before you can reply to a message...
You must first register for a Remote Central user account - it's fast and free! Or, if you already have an account, please login now.

Please read the following: Unsolicited commercial advertisements are absolutely not permitted on this forum. Other private buy & sell messages should be posted to our Marketplace. For information on how to advertise your service or product click here. Remote Central reserves the right to remove or modify any post that is deemed inappropriate.

Hosting Services by ipHouse