RickG wrote:
Dave,
Thanks for the explanation. Really, my clients want to improve their
browsing speed. Of course, like most people, they associate speed with
speed test website such as speakeasy, etc.
In order to improve speed you need lower RTT and less congestion/packet
loss on any given
Thanks Matt! Yes, the first thing I did was set up my own speed test
site on net.
On 1/22/07, Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
RickG wrote:
Dave,
Thanks for the explanation. Really, my clients want to improve their
browsing speed. Of course, like most people, they associate speed with
This has been the case for me. Everyone wants a unique connection to
the net in case of an outage.
Not to beat a dead horse but back to the load-sharing question:
According to the responses I'm getting is that load sharing wont work.
So, why do I find so many article sayign it does such as
RickG wrote:
According to the responses I'm getting is that load sharing wont work.
So, why do I find so many article sayign it does such as
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=13103 ?
Depends on your definition of load-balancing. Traditionally, that means
you can balance traffic
Dave,
Thanks for the explanation. Really, my clients want to improve their
browsing speed. Of course, like most people, they associate speed with
speed test website such as speakeasy, etc.
-RickG
On 1/21/07, David E. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
RickG wrote:
According to the responses I'm
19, 2007 8:33 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Dual-WAN routers
Juat catching up on the list after a busy couple of weeks. So, are we
saying that all the products that claim load balancing dont work? I
can testify that the auto-failover works but the load sharing seems to
make things slower not faster
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Dual-WAN routers
On Sat, 6 Jan 2007, David E. Smith wrote:
This is for the end user cpe side. I'd like to see both fail-over and
load balancing but fail-over is priority. No need for wireless. I'll
look into the microtik. Thanks! -RickG
Rick, keeping in mind that load
Another thing for my RD department! Thanks! -RickG
On 1/7/07, Butch Evans [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 6 Jan 2007, David E. Smith wrote:
This is for the end user cpe side. I'd like to see both fail-over and
load balancing but fail-over is priority. No need for wireless. I'll
look into
NO EXPERIENCE, BUT AN INTERESTING ARTICLE TO READ AT
http://www.networkworld.com/reviews/2004/0913rev.html
CHUCK
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of RickG
Sent: Saturday, January 06, 2007 12:35 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA]
RickG wrote:
Hey, I've been testing Dual-WAN routers. I've used Xincom, Linksys,
D-Link. The Linksys seems to be most reliable because it has a health
check feature. Has anyone out there tried anything else?
Are you just looking for redundancy (i.e. automatic failover so if one
ISP or
Nice article! Thx! RickG
On 1/6/07, CHUCK PROFITO [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
NO EXPERIENCE, BUT AN INTERESTING ARTICLE TO READ AT
http://www.networkworld.com/reviews/2004/0913rev.html
CHUCK
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of RickG
Sent:
David,
This is for the end user cpe side. I'd like to see both fail-over and
load balancing but fail-over is priority. No need for wireless. I'll
look into the microtik. Thanks! -RickG
On 1/6/07, David E. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
RickG wrote:
Hey, I've been testing Dual-WAN routers.
On Sat, 6 Jan 2007, David E. Smith wrote:
This is for the end user cpe side. I'd like to see both fail-over and
load balancing but fail-over is priority. No need for wireless. I'll
look into the microtik. Thanks! -RickG
Rick, keeping in mind that load balancing where you don't control
both
I have a Hawking wireless one. Nothing to
write home about thought.
If there's a t-1 involved I'd think you'd want to
use the cisco (or whatever) that's already on the t-1.
If you are going to back up a t-1 I'd certainly
look at a higher end unit than a Linksys or something along those
On Mon, 19 Jun 2006, Bo Hamilton wrote:
I'm in the market for a dual WAN router. Could I get some feedback
on the some that you guys and gals are using. I have some clients
using me as a backup for their T1's, so Im just trying to find out
wich one's are the best to go with.
Mikrotik with
Bo,
I would use a MikroTik box in an indoor
enclosure, The RB532 w/64Megs of ram running OSPF would be easy, fast and as
reliable as anything I know. Another solution if you were looking for a rack
mount set up would be to get a Cisco router and drop a couple modules in it and
do their
If you are familiar with RouterOS a routerboard 500 would do the trick
and only run you about $175
Sam Tetherow
Sandhills Wireless
Dylan Oliver wrote:
You might check Peplink.com http://Peplink.com for its Balance
products -
http://www.peplink.com/productsLoader.php?productName=balance
Thanks everyone for all the feedback!!!
Bo
On 6/19/06, Sam Tetherow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you are familiar with RouterOS a routerboard 500 would do the trickand only run you about $175
Sam Tetherow Sandhills WirelessDylan Oliver wrote: You might check Peplink.com http://Peplink.com for
Title: Message
are
you planning on getting your customer an AS running
BGP?
if not
-- and you're willing to roll up your sleaves a bit, you can "hack it" w/ some
Mikrotik scripting (In my ISP days, one of my customers back in 2002/2003, Larry
Yunker actually, was doing this b/n our
Architectshttp://www.cwlab.com
-Original Message-From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Mac DearmanSent: Monday, June 19, 2006 10:03 AMTo:
'WISPA General List'Subject: RE: [WISPA] Dual WAN
Routers
Bo,
I would use a
MikroTik box
Unlesss your doing BGP/OSPF or something fancy, might want to check out
www.hotbrick.com ~$250. You can configure some nice little things(email
alert, universal client on LAN, services 'binding', desired
loadbalancing %, etc.)in a matter of minutes that would take
considerably longer on a
21 matches
Mail list logo
