If this pipe-dream were to occur you can assume that the providers will not be willing to provide assistance with it. They would see the number of subscribers going down and their upstream connectivity requirements going up as their subscriber base more efficiently utilizes bandwidth.
This being the case MPPP will not be possible, but it is also not necessary. Out of sequence packets slowing down TCP performance is an age-old problem on all routers doing ECMP that is solved by hashing the src/dst addresses and ports to keep flows traveling through the same network path avoiding out of sequence ordering. Can somebody explain why this wouldn't work for the original posters idea? Please see RFC 2992 for more info.... http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2992.txt?number=2992 Of course the algorithm would need to be deterministic to prevent traffic ping-ponging between subscribers, but it would not be a hard problem to solve. The other thing is that you wouldn't get Nx the bandwidth for a single transfer, increased bandwidth would only be seen with multiple transfers. I purposely took the Manet distribution list off of my reply and would recommend everybody else to do the same since this has nothing to do with the scope of that list... AF -----Original Message----- From: Ken Peirce [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 10:10 AM To: 'S Woodside'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [manet] I have a dream You're looking at combining the multiple links into one as far as TCP can tell. This is what Multilink PPP does. Unfortunately, the problem will be the dissimilar link speeds. Packet reordering is evil for TCP and the slow DSL link will not only be the limiting factor but will likely cause the bundle of links to perform like a weak DSL connection. My $.02 Ken -----Original Message----- From: S Woodside [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 9:43 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [manet] I have a dream Well, it's a fairly minor dream. What I imagine is this: I have DSL. My neighbour has DSL. We also both have WiFi APs that can reach each other, and connect at order-of-magnitude faster than the DSL links. What I dream is this: That we start routing internet across the link. When I start pulling packets off the internet, they can come to me not only through my own DSL but from hers as well. I think this boils down to an ultimate simplicity what all FN / CWNers want to achieve. What needs to happen before I can realize my dream. I need to get an IPv6 address ... at least one ... for free. I need to be able to set up multi-homing in my home router. I need to be able to advertise my routing path to the internet. The internet needs to be able to handle at a massive scale (since every neighbour connects...). We need a /lot/ more IP addresses than we have now. I need to use a /real/ IP address because I can't route internet traffic through a NAT/site-local address. I need to have an ad-hoc routing algorithm that can set up this bridge and route across it really easily (because I'm not a trained network admin). Forget about BGP, AS, etc., we need a way to handle the massive overload of routes at local scale, at a regional scale, at a global scale -- something that will scale gracefully as the internet topology shifts from a tree to a massively connected mesh. Please comment ... tell me what you think. Simon PS I'm cross-posting this to a bunch of lists because I don't know one it belongs on. If you think you know which is best, please tell me! _______________________________________________ manet mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet _______________________________________________ manet mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet -- general wireless list, a bawug thing <http://www.bawug.org/> [un]subscribe: http://lists.bawug.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
