can only modulate so high, particularly when
poorly run/done, which is why you're stuck at
12mbps.
If they had to change your home copper, they'd
just run fiber, neither will happen likely.
t;>> any are available.
>>>>> On 8/16/20 10:39 AM, Michael Butash wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I think it mostly comes down to the fact that they can only really
>>>>> guarantee 2 or 4 wires to a premise for residential telco, probably more
>>>>>
run fiber, neither will happen likely.
The DSL bonding is already a hack to get more
bandwidth when DSL itself is stuck in time now at
raw theoretical limits. Combining more physical
channels as these were would be trivial, if
arantee 2 or 4 wires to a premise for residential telco, probably more
>>>> modern deployments a full 8 wires (ala CatX), though their traditional
>>>> copper distribution isn't built for it unless commercial (their big PED on
>>>> the roads your neighborhood com
oorly
run/done, which is why you're stuck at 12mbps.
If they had to change your home copper, they'd just run
fiber, neither will happen likely.
The DSL bonding is already a hack to get more bandwidth
when DSL itself is stuck in time n
odulate so high,
particularly when poorly run/done, which is why you're stuck
at 12mbps.
If they had to change your home copper, they'd just run
fiber, neither will happen likely.
The DSL bonding is already a hack to get more bandwidth when
DSL itself i
ntee 2 or 4 wires to a premise for residential telco, probably more
>>>> modern deployments a full 8 wires (ala CatX), though their traditional
>>>> copper distribution isn't built for it unless commercial (their big PED on
>>>> the roads your neighborhood come
distribution isn't built for it unless commercial (their big PED on
>>> the roads your neighborhood comes back to. Probably something in the
>>> telcordia standards back to ma bell days that says that is just how it is.
>>> Since the plants are non-shielded, non-twisted
o, it can
>> only modulate so high, particularly when poorly run/done, which is why
>> you're stuck at 12mbps.
>>
>> If they had to change your home copper, they'd just run fiber, neither
>> will happen likely.
>>
>> The DSL bonding is already a hack to
to change your home copper, they'd just run fiber, neither
> will happen likely.
>
> The DSL bonding is already a hack to get more bandwidth when DSL itself is
> stuck in time now at raw theoretical limits. Combining more physical
> channels as these were would be trivial, if copper were
All the traditional 2-wire telco's are rather SOL at this point, where I
think most have transitioned to fiber for anything new. If they aren't,
they might as well go home as it is end of life technology and was 20 years
ago.
Next up, Starlink (Tesla/Musk) is going to start soaking up that
I've read articles saying AT is planning on abandoning their copper in
rural areas when it fails and instead transitioning landline customers
in those reas to VOIP adapters that will use their 4G network. Here in
Tennessee there are lots of hills and not so many people living around
them. I
n
> only modulate so high, particularly when poorly run/done, which is why
> you're stuck at 12mbps.
>
> If they had to change your home copper, they'd just run fiber, neither
> will happen likely.
>
> The DSL bonding is already a hack to get more bandwidth when DSL itself is
&
poorly run/done, which is why you're stuck at 12mbps.
If they had to change your home copper, they'd just run fiber, neither
will happen likely.
The DSL bonding is already a hack to get more bandwidth when DSL
itself is stuck in time now at raw theoretical limits. Combining more
physical
.
If they had to change your home copper, they'd just run fiber, neither will
happen likely.
The DSL bonding is already a hack to get more bandwidth when DSL itself is
stuck in time now at raw theoretical limits. Combining more physical
channels as these were would be trivial, if copper were
e I live, I get AT for my DSL service. I've signed up
for an
upgrade from 10 Mbps to 25. I finally got someone there who
would tell
me why a technician visit is required for the upgrade.
They're bonding 2
pairs to supply the faster speed here. I've
t;> me why a technician visit is required for the upgrade. They're bonding 2
>> pairs to supply the faster speed here. I've read up online about DSL
>> bonding. I understand that one pair will carry some of the data, and
>> the other pair will carry some. But one t
signed up for an
upgrade from 10 Mbps to 25. I finally got someone there who would
tell
me why a technician visit is required for the upgrade. They're
bonding 2
pairs to supply the faster speed here. I've read up online about DSL
bonding. I understand that one pair will c
for the upgrade. They're bonding 2
> pairs to supply the faster speed here. I've read up online about DSL
> bonding. I understand that one pair will carry some of the data, and
> the other pair will carry some. But one thing I didn't find out was
> whether or not anything will c
Where I live, I get AT for my DSL service. I've signed up for an
upgrade from 10 Mbps to 25. I finally got someone there who would tell
me why a technician visit is required for the upgrade. They're bonding 2
pairs to supply the faster speed here. I've read up online about DSL
bonding. I
, configure, and
maintain. Or if you have a single Etherswitch for your entire network, and
two NIC cards on every computer, server, or other device you want to access
at 10% faster speed you can do that, too. But if you are not careful and
just do a straight forward bonding you may cut your network
Thanks for the reply. You saved me hours of fighting with it.
On 09/09/2018 01:30 PM, Michael Butash wrote:
Keep in mind, bonding nics does not magically give you n+x throughput...
By nature of the technology, there are flow hashes created off
source/dest mac, ip, or port, that keeps your
For bonding it is never a good idea to bond different port speeds.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Sep 9, 2018, at 1:09 PM, Aaron Jones wrote:
>
> You are still limited by the pipe and the sending/receiving box. It’s
> probably not gonna work like you think. You will most like
Keep in mind, bonding nics does not magically give you n+x throughput...
By nature of the technology, there are flow hashes created off source/dest
mac, ip, or port, that keeps your flows "stuck" to a particular computes
hash path. So if you have a single tcp connection with s
You are still limited by the pipe and the sending/receiving box. It’s probably
not gonna work like you think. You will most likely slow your connection down.
But ...
https://askubuntu.com/questions/53499/how-to-merge-multiple-internet-connections-into-one
Try it out and report back.
> On
My computer has 100 megabit ethernet on the motherboard. I've disabled
that so I can use the gigabit ethernet card I added. If I were to bond
those adapters, could i get 1.1 gigabit? How would I do this?
thanks
---
PLUG-discuss mailing list
26 matches
Mail list logo
