On Tue, 2 Oct 2001, Jeff Newmiller wrote: > On Tue, 2 Oct 2001, David McBride wrote: > > > Okay, here we go again. I am trying to join the bandwidth of two cable > > modems. > > I thought you were working with a dsl and cable connection. Perhaps this > is just for learning? > > Two cable modems.... hmmm... > > ISP -----+---------+---------- > | | > mdmA mdmB > | | > ***eth0******eth2*** > * * > * LEAF router * > * * > ********eth1******** > | > | > > The problem with trying to get better bandwidth using two cable modems is > that the cable itself is being shared. The only bandwidth improvement you > will get is having two devices contending for access instead of one. > Thus, if your LRP and one other subscriber are the only ones contending > for bandwidth, you get two-thirds of the bandwidth. If there are a couple > of dozen modems contending for access on that segment, then you may go > from 4% to 8% of the bandwidth. Or, if you are the only one contending for > access, your double modem setup gains you nothing. > > Thus, at the very time when you want to improve your throughput (high > contention), you are only able to achieve a fraction of the throughput you > have under ideal circumstances, so the appearance is that having two > modems is really gaining you nothing. Despite the relative gain, my > tapping fingers would question whether a gain of 4% is worth the effort. > > > I am useing the Eigerstein disk with kernel and nic modules from > > Eigerstein2beta/20010527 for pentium cpu. evrything works except that only > > one nic is used for internet instead of both. From lrp I can ping all > > interfaces and network and internet, from system on network the same is > > true. All works, except the joining of bandwith. I read the > > load-balanceing doc, but did not understand it. I am pretty sure I need > > to do the round robin. > > I can't help with that. Jack Coates seemed to be having troubles with > this recently, so you might want to look back through the archives. >
Yup -- looks like you'll need two routers to do the trick. Not sure if it's worth the trouble. > > I know this is probably for two different routers, but I dont see how else I > > can do it. My ip info is eth0 208.180.172.208 netmask 208.180.172.0/24 gw > > 208.180.172.1, eth2 208.180.172.209 rest same as eth0. eth1 is lan side. > > > > router1 > > route add -net a.a.a.a netmask b.b.b.b gw c.c.c.c > > route add -net z.z.z.z netmask y.y.y.y metric 1 dev eth0 > > > > router2 > > route add -net z.z.z.z netmask y.y.y.y gw x.x.x.x > > route add -net a.a.a.a netmask b.b.b.b metric 1 dev eth0 > > > > Dont undrestand how to fill in the blanks. > > When I tried route add .... it said route not found. I tried ip route add > > -net ........ and a "inet prefex is expected not "-net" error" message > > appeared. > > "route" is not present in Eigerstein, and the "ip" syntax is quite > different from "route" syntax. > > The correct syntax _is_ encoded in /etc/init.d/network, so why not use the > /etc/network.conf file to invoke those commands? > > > NOw Im really confused. Please someone help me gain what little sanity I > > used to have. > > You have tackled a difficult problem. If difficult problems push you over > the edge, maybe you should work on something easier. :) > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Jeff Newmiller The ..... ..... Go Live... > DCN:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Basics: ##.#. ##.#. Live Go... > Live: OO#.. Dead: OO#.. Playing > Research Engineer (Solar/Batteries O.O#. #.O#. with > /Software/Embedded Controllers) .OO#. .OO#. rocks...2k > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leaf-user mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-user > -- Jack Coates Monkeynoodle: A Scientific Venture... _______________________________________________ Leaf-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-user
