Yeah, I'm not familiar with the aggregation solution, nor do I use the
failover feature on the RV042s (or any other router/modem/firewall
device.) All of my client's are now enjoying either fiber or at the
worst, cable connections. In fact, my to-do list today includes having
the joy of calling AT&T and cancelling the last DSL line I'm responsible
for. Yeeeha!
I started using the RV042's simply because they worked, were relatively
cheap, and like the old adage "no one ever got fired from buying IBM"
the same can be said about buying Cisco-brand network hardware. I've had
clients bring in network analysts/experts to look over systems I've
built and they do like to pooh-pooh off-the-shelf consumer-grade
equipment in their analysis. I've never had one say "Oh, Cisco huh?
Saving money?"
In a case where there appears to be a bottleneck for Interweb access, I
would divide and conquer with multiple pathways through multiple
router/gateways. As you point out, one video stream from Vimeo can blitz
the entire capacity of your pipeline until finished, rendering everyone
else to a "buffering" mode. That way by just editing the gateway setting
on a workstation you can 'move' a system from one pipe to the other.
Mike C
Joe Yoder wrote:
Thanks for the input on the RV042s Mike. It sounds like a pain to always
be on the lookout for a condition that requires a reboot! Is there perhaps
a watchdog timer provision in the system to automatically reboot if a ping
attempt fails?
I am not familiar with the RV042s but I understand some WAN sharing devices
simply alternate which modem picks up a request. This seems like a
reasonable approach but I also understand that in some cases when a machine
once connects it will always go out on the same WAN port. This would
eliminate the possibility of a power user getting the benefit of both ports
and probably mean that machines initially connected to a modem that goes
offline would be unable to reach the Internet.
Finally I understand there is a scheme when the data throughput is
aggregated. This would seem to be the superior approach but I think it
requires support from the ISP side.
Joe
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 10:33 AM, Mike Copeland <[email protected]> wrote:
I've used around a dozen of the Cisco RV042 routers and they do have a few
shortcomings. I'm currently looking for an alternative.
The problem with the RV042 (Cisco, or Linksys) that finally prompted me to
look elsewhere is that the built-in DHCP server limits the # of connections
to 50.
I've also experienced lockups where for no obvious reason on a fairly
light work load, the router will have to be rebooted just because it went
out to lunch.
And, just because it has the Cisco name on it, don't expect Cisco-quality
support...this is in their "Small Office" line up and the support is small,
too.
I've also had it refuse connections from a specific IP when there are
multiple requests in too short a time frame. In other words if 10 or more
computers at one location reboot and try to reconnect to a server behind
the RV042, the RV042 may detect it as a synflood attack and refuse all
connections...until a reboot of the router, then it works fine. I went
round and round with several tiers of support techs at Cisco until the last
guy said "Sorry, you need a different router."
Finally, the latest versions of both Chrome or Firefox browsers will not
let you connect to the router interface for configuration, because there is
a problem with the router's security certificate. You have to use IE or an
older version of Firefox. Not a deal breaker but annoying when things
aren't working and you are rushing around trying to figure out why.
But, when the RV042 (or RV042G) work, they're really easy to set up, and I
usually pay around $110 through Amazon.
Mike Copeland
Ted Roche wrote:
We've mentioned the LinkSys (now Cisco) RV042 on this forum before.
Essentially, it's a router with two WAN ports. You can configure the
routing to failover from one to the other on failure, or balance the
traffic between the two, which should expand your internet bandwidth.
This device is getting on in its years, as a 10/100 router, and is
probably at a premium price, since it has the Cisco brand on it. But
it looks like you could find it for under $100, and it might be worth
trying out as an inexpensive solution. (There's also an updated
Gigabit model RV042G for around $150.)
http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/routers/rv042-dual-wan-vpn-router/index.html
On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 6:51 PM, Joe Yoder <[email protected]> wrote:
I want to increase Internet access bandwidth on a network I manage. The
only unmetered broadband available in the area is DSL so my only option
appears to be a second DSL modem. Ideally the two modems would equally
share the load but I understand to do that properly requires a bonding
modem and possibly support by the ISP.
It seems a simpler approach might be to split the traffic between the
terminal services server and the machines connected to the server. This
would mean that when a user accesses the Internet while in an RDP session
the traffic would go through the server modem. If the user accesses the
Internet from a browser running on the local machine, the traffic would
be
on the non server modem.
My question relates to how one configures such a setup. Is it as simple
as
setting up the second modem with its own static IP address and using that
address as the gateway address for the server and leaving everything else
the same? Anything else?
Thanks in advance for any input!
Joe
--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
multipart/alternative
text/plain (text body -- kept)
text/html
---
[excessive quoting removed by server]
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: [email protected]
Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message:
http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
