Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Advertise on LowEndTalk.com
Any freeware alternatives to Inetfusion for combining two connections?
New on LowEndTalk? Please read our 'Community Rules' by clicking on it in the right menu!

Any freeware alternatives to Inetfusion for combining two connections?

Hello all,

I've been experimenting a bit with the idea of combining two network connections to get faster download speed due to that I'm stuck with slow ADSL.

I do have a dedicated unlimited 4G card running on the same machine, but the speeds are not that great and therefore it would be nice to be able to combine the two connections.

The software Inetfusion have been able to do so and it has been working somewhat good considering the circumstances, but the software is paid and there is only a limited trial that expires in 7 days.

Therefore I thought I would ask here to see if anyone knows if there is any way to achieve a similar setup without paying for software?

Thanked by 1[Deleted User]

Comments

  • WebProjectWebProject Member, Provider

    You can improve 4G connection by using various hardware, as 4G on some occasions faster than ADSL depends on signal strength.

    Thanked by 1[Deleted User]
    VPS Price Match Guarantee on: All our range of DDOS protected XEN-HVM VPS Plans
    Are you looking for best price for self-managed VPS? See WebProVPS website for more details.
  • Prime404Prime404 Member
    edited November 2018

    @WebProject said:
    You can improve 4G connection by using various hardware, as 4G on some occasions faster than ADSL depends on signal strength.

    That's unfortunately not a solution for me as the coverage is good, but the actual speeds on the 4G network is really poor due to that the carrier seems to be overselling their service.

    Thanked by 1[Deleted User]
  • Look into MLVPN or vtrunkd, your mileage will vary depending on the links though. Works best when bonding similar connections (i.e. multiple 4G) but will still work with mix-and-match.

    If I remember correctly there was a fork of MLVPN that worked well with bigger latency differences but has higher overhead due to the re-ordering algorithm. You’ll also need to setup a remote server/VPS with enough bandwidth to combine them back into a useable link.

    If you just want “normal” load balancing, most SOHO multi-wan routers could probably do that

  • MikePTMikePT Member, Provider

    Maybe its worth paying for the software, no? Programmers need to be paid for as well.

    Thanked by 2Ksygo Europetrader
  • @MikePT said:
    Maybe its worth paying for the software, no? Programmers need to be paid for as well.

    I'm aware of that, but I can't justify spending nearly 100 USD on a single license at this time as I'm not sure for how long I'll have to use this.

  • MikePTMikePT Member, Provider

    @Prime404 said:

    @MikePT said:
    Maybe its worth paying for the software, no? Programmers need to be paid for as well.

    I'm aware of that, but I can't justify spending nearly 100 USD on a single license at this time as I'm not sure for how long I'll have to use this.

    I see. Well I cant help you much. Doing a bond connection the way you want isnt easy.

  • @Prime404 said:

    @MikePT said:
    Maybe its worth paying for the software, no? Programmers need to be paid for as well.

    I'm aware of that, but I can't justify spending nearly 100 USD on a single license at this time as I'm not sure for how long I'll have to use this.

    If you can't justify 100 USD , how about buying mikrotik router for $25.

  • JackHJackH Moderator

    iproute2 (shipped with basically every modern Linux distro by default) has lots of bonding options.
    I've been using it to bond two VDSL lines easily with minimal overhead. Given your links are at different latencies and speeds, you'll want to look at adaptive transmit load balancing or XOR balancing as opposed to the round robin balancing that I use.
    This won't give you higher single stream performance, but will load balance streams across the two connections giving you an effective increase.

    Thanked by 3ehab FHR Ksygo

    NVMe KVM VPS in Amsterdam, Stockholm, Oslo, Vienna and LA ($2.50/1GB RAM/10GB NVMe/month) (AFF LINK)

  • You can also look at gateway groups in pfsense.

  • Depending on your Cellular carrier, you might be able to get better performance by just upgrading the cellular hardware that supports multiple 20MHz channel pairs.

    However, your carrier must also support Carrier Aggregation on their towers for this trick to work.

    BuyPrivacy | Privacy focused VPN's starting from $2.05/month | PayPal and CryptoCurrencies (BTC,BCC,DOGE,ETH and more) Accepted!

    Also, a .NET Core evangelist.

  • @JackHadrill said:
    iproute2 (shipped with basically every modern Linux distro by default) has lots of bonding options.
    I've been using it to bond two VDSL lines easily with minimal overhead.

    How exactly did you do that? You can't use simple bonding/teaming over the internet, it works only for L2 segment. Was you referring to route nexthop balancing using ip-route? It would work in some way, but you still need to create multiple routing tables and mark connections with iptables to link incoming packets with outgoing.

  • @Prime404, there are 2 methods to aggregate multiple internet links into one:

    1. Connection balancing. One connection goes via one link and another one via another link. A single connection can't be faster than one of the links, so you won't get higher speeds when downloading a file in one thread over HTTP. May introduce problems with websites which bind cookies to IP addresses.
      Connection balancing could be configured using stock Linux utilities like iproute2/iptables. The most known utility for automatic configuration is OpenWRT's mwan3.

    2. Packet balancing. A proper method to join multiple links in one. Requires additional proxy server on the internet which will accept the traffic, and additional software like mptunnel, mlvpn, glorytun or alternatives, or a kernel with MPTCP. This method will give faster speeds on a single connection (e.g. when downloading a file over HTTP) and generally works better.

    Thanked by 3uptime rincewind Ksygo
  • JackHJackH Moderator
    edited November 2018

    @ValdikSS said:

    @JackHadrill said:
    iproute2 (shipped with basically every modern Linux distro by default) has lots of bonding options.
    I've been using it to bond two VDSL lines easily with minimal overhead.

    How exactly did you do that? You can't use simple bonding/teaming over the internet, it works only for L2 segment. Was you referring to route nexthop balancing using ip-route? It would work in some way, but you still need to create multiple routing tables and mark connections with iptables to link incoming packets with outgoing.

    gretap or L2TP work wonderfully, with the only tradeoff being MTU.

    NVMe KVM VPS in Amsterdam, Stockholm, Oslo, Vienna and LA ($2.50/1GB RAM/10GB NVMe/month) (AFF LINK)

  • @JackHadrill said:
    gretap or L2TP work wonderfully, with the only tradeoff being MTU.

    They don't work wonderfully, at least for single TCP connections. Usual TCP congestion control algorithms are designed to work with a single link with more or less predictable latency and won't work as good as multiple links congestion control algorithms as like in MPTCP.

    Moreover, if you configure only nexthops you won't be able to handle incoming connections properly. For example, if you try to connect to one of your computer IP addresses (not your remote gretap/L2TP server IP address), the reply packet will be sent from your server IP address and nothing will work. You need to configure multiple routing tables and mark connections (connmark) to assure using proper source IP address and interface.

  • JackHJackH Moderator

    @ValdikSS said:

    @JackHadrill said:
    gretap or L2TP work wonderfully, with the only tradeoff being MTU.

    They don't work wonderfully, at least for single TCP connections. Usual TCP congestion control algorithms are designed to work with a single link with more or less predictable latency and won't work as good as multiple links congestion control algorithms as like in MPTCP.

    Moreover, if you configure only nexthops you won't be able to handle incoming connections properly. For example, if you try to connect to one of your computer IP addresses (not your remote gretap/L2TP server IP address), the reply packet will be sent from your server IP address and nothing will work. You need to configure multiple routing tables and mark connections (connmark) to assure using proper source IP address and interface.

    It works just fine, but this is in part due to my lines having less than 0.2ms difference between them (which I blame on jitter).

    I announce a /24 over the bonded connection and have proper, full routing tables everywhere you look :P

    NVMe KVM VPS in Amsterdam, Stockholm, Oslo, Vienna and LA ($2.50/1GB RAM/10GB NVMe/month) (AFF LINK)

  • JackHadrill said: I announce a /24 over the bonded connection and have proper, full routing tables everywhere you look :P

    Well, that's not a usual usecase then. With proper BPG routing you won't need to use provider's IP address, you can use just yours over any connection.

  • JackHJackH Moderator

    @ValdikSS said:

    JackHadrill said: I announce a /24 over the bonded connection and have proper, full routing tables everywhere you look :P

    Well, that's not a usual usecase then. With proper BPG routing you won't need to use provider's IP address, you can use just yours over any connection.

    This is all possible without doing that ^

    It's really not as bad as you're making out.

    NVMe KVM VPS in Amsterdam, Stockholm, Oslo, Vienna and LA ($2.50/1GB RAM/10GB NVMe/month) (AFF LINK)

  • This is all possible without doing that ^

    Are both your VDSL links from the same provider?

    Under normal (non BGP) routing, the TCP sessions would get reset without sticky routing.

  • JackHJackH Moderator

    @rincewind said:

    This is all possible without doing that ^

    Are both your VDSL links from the same provider?

    Under normal (non BGP) routing, the TCP sessions would get reset without sticky routing.

    They are, but that could easily be circumvented with L2 tunneling

    NVMe KVM VPS in Amsterdam, Stockholm, Oslo, Vienna and LA ($2.50/1GB RAM/10GB NVMe/month) (AFF LINK)

  • They are

    That could be why it works, if your provider is doing some bonding on their end.

    but that could easily be circumvented with L2 tunneling

    Exactly! Tunnel to an external proxy server that presents a single IP address to the world. Which is what MLVPN, GloryTun or any other similar alternative would do. Multipath TCP would likely have lower overhead than L2 tunneling.

  • This isn't free, but I think Connectify has been doing the combined Internet stuff for like a decade and have learned the lessons to make it not half bad. They used to do really discounted lifetime licenses, not sure about now. I mostly used the Hotspot software from my laptop and didn't use the Connectify features.

  • I did it years ago with GRE tunnels and 2 VDSL2 lines of about the same speed on 2 different ISPs (but with similar latency to the endpoint), at the time the EdgeOS devices weren't doing Kernel route caching for IPv4 so for IPv4 traffic tended to be 50% balanced round robin.

    IPv6 it did have a route cache so that ended up being session based.

    Managed to get 130Mbit down ~35Mbit UP with 2x ~73/20 lines which given I was using ER-X's at each end I was fairly impressed with given how cheap ER-X's are.

  • JackHJackH Moderator

    @rincewind said:

    They are

    That could be why it works, if your provider is doing some bonding on their end.

    but that could easily be circumvented with L2 tunneling

    Exactly! Tunnel to an external proxy server that presents a single IP address to the world. Which is what MLVPN, GloryTun or any other similar alternative would do. Multipath TCP would likely have lower overhead than L2 tunneling.

    My point is that you don't need MLVPN or GloryTun... iproute2 can do this over an L2 tunnel. This is what I do...

    My provider doesn't do bonding, I do over the tunnels at both endpoints.

    NVMe KVM VPS in Amsterdam, Stockholm, Oslo, Vienna and LA ($2.50/1GB RAM/10GB NVMe/month) (AFF LINK)

  • JackHadrill said: My point is that you don't need MLVPN or GloryTun... iproute2 can do this over an L2 tunnel. This is what I do...

    It is not required to use additional software indeed, but it would work much better than a simple L2 tunnel for TCP connections, because all current TCP congestion control algorithms are designed to work with a single connection and would not properly handle different links with different bandwidth and latency. Your case with 2 physically identical links from a single ISP is special, and your method won't work well with e.g. Ethernet and LTE, you'll likely would get a bit more bandwidth of the slowest link.

  • JackHJackH Moderator

    @ValdikSS said:

    JackHadrill said: My point is that you don't need MLVPN or GloryTun... iproute2 can do this over an L2 tunnel. This is what I do...

    It is not required to use additional software indeed, but it would work much better than a simple L2 tunnel for TCP connections, because all current TCP congestion control algorithms are designed to work with a single connection and would not properly handle different links with different bandwidth and latency. Your case with 2 physically identical links from a single ISP is special, and your method won't work well with e.g. Ethernet and LTE, you'll likely would get a bit more bandwidth of the slowest link.

    Hence me suggesting per-stream based bonding instead of per-packet. Per-stream will work perfectly and result in an effective higher bandwidth without having to do anything fucky with TCP.

    NVMe KVM VPS in Amsterdam, Stockholm, Oslo, Vienna and LA ($2.50/1GB RAM/10GB NVMe/month) (AFF LINK)

  • @JackHadrill I'd be interested to read more into how you're doing this- I might need to bond a couple 3Gs together for backup when the power fails.

    Own a piece of internets history.

  • JackHJackH Moderator

    @CyberMonday said:
    @JackHadrill I'd be interested to read more into how you're doing this- I might need to bond a couple 3Gs together for backup when the power fails.

    I'll string together my shell scripts and pass those over to you at some point this weekend :-)

    Thanked by 1CyberMonday

    NVMe KVM VPS in Amsterdam, Stockholm, Oslo, Vienna and LA ($2.50/1GB RAM/10GB NVMe/month) (AFF LINK)

  • @JackHadrill said:

    @CyberMonday said:
    @JackHadrill I'd be interested to read more into how you're doing this- I might need to bond a couple 3Gs together for backup when the power fails.

    I'll string together my shell scripts and pass those over to you at some point this weekend :-)

    I might have to fork your deal and make an OpenWRT repo based on it. Cheers!

    Own a piece of internets history.

Sign In or Register to comment.