On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 7:54 AM, Tiernan OToole <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > if i a reading correctly, i would be thinking Layer 2 would > essentially be at a frame level, so it would be closer to Link > Aggregation with Ethernet connections... > > - --Tiernan > > People have done it. I have tried it with OpenVPN and while I got it working, the connections I used were the not the best type of connections to the scenario. They were wireless. I have yet to see any tests posted from other people doing it. The connections that I used were very latent. I did it all manually with Debian boxes. I think latency is a big problem because of how layer2 bonding works and how it handles packets. If I remember correctly it likes symmetric connections too. Or at least two connections with the same upstream and downstream. You could try it but optimally you would want to stick with layer three as this is totally different then bonding two T1's or DSL modems together. They are not tunnelling Layer2 over Layer3. Fail over with this tunnelling method worked very well though when I tried it. But so would layer3. The test results I remember from my experiment were only marginally faster but it really would have been nice to try on some wired connections that have some stability and I would think may be able to sync at some level. I am by no means a bonding expert. I documented some of my journey here if you are interested: http://wiki.hackspherelabs.com/index.php?title=Connection_and_VPN_Bonding _______________________________________________ pfSense mailing list https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list Support the project with Gold! https://pfsense.org/gold
