[asterisk-users] CISCO 2950 -> 4 connections -> Cap of 512 Kbps -> How to bond ?

[D Tucny]

A 2950 can be configured to limit the speed per port...

I guess the ISP here is operating this way because they are out of the way
and have limited bandwidth themselves, so, they are trying to split up the
bandwidth provided into smaller, more manageable chunks to avoid overloading
things at their end...

In asia here too the ISP that has service in this building has put in 24port
switches, if I ask for ethernet service, I'm told there's no such thing, all
I can order is ADSL, if I order ADSL, I get a 10Mb/s ethernet connection to
the switch, but then internet access is provided over PPPoE limited to 3Mb/s
both ways, I can get additional connections, to the same switches, with
seperate PPPoE accounts, again limited to 3Mb/s... So, at least I'm luckier
than Vikas, but, there is no alternative... There are features I would like,
but, in a monopoly you get what your given...

It's possible to load balance traffic over 4 connections though without any
help from the ISP... It won't be perfectly balanced, but it will do a
reasonably decent job... The options are many though and it depends on what
kit you have... I've done it with cisco routers before without nat where the
ISP was happy to support it and linux firewalls with nat with multiple
ISPs...

d

2009/2/13 Alex Balashov <abalashov at evaristesys.com>

> Oh--you mentioned in an earlier post that the Cisco switch was installed by
> the ISP, so presumably that is something they consider their CPE as well.
>
> You can't rate-limit IP bandwidth on Layer 2 switches, and a Catalyst 2950
> does not have a Layer 3 feature set;  that only comes with MSFCs on
> higher-order Catalysts.  So, they are doing in some fashion other than on
> the switch ports, which is why I asked about the routed interfaces;  does
> anything plugged into a given port have a separate routed interface?
>
> -- Alex
>
>
> On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 04:17:37 -0500, Alex Balashov
> <abalashov at evaristesys.com> wrote:
> >
> > This discussion is not making any sense to me.
> >
> > Just what type of access product is this?
> >
> > If you have fiber to the premise and are handed Ethernet from there to a
> > Cisco switch, it is some sort of Metro Ethernet or NMLI (Native Mode LAN
> > Interconnection) type product.  It could also be framed over mid-band
> gear
> > over copper at some point in the circuit design and they could be fibbing
> > you on the fiber to the premise bit;  the "fiber" involved may actually
> be
> > a remote terminal or mux somewhere in the vicinity.  Either way, if you
> > have media converter CPE on your premises, this is an Ethernet product.
> >
> > If that's so, there's no "512 kbps line."  There is no xDSL.  And there
> is
> > no incentive whatsoever to sell copper circuits as Ethernet transport is
> > usually more expensive and high-margin product.
> >
> > Do you have a routed IP interface on your side?  If so, what equipment is
> > it on?  It's not the switch, as the switch is Layer 2.
> >
> >
> > On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 10:09:03 +0100, Benny Amorsen
> > <benny+usenet at amorsen.dk <benny%2Busenet at amorsen.dk>>
> > wrote:
> >> Vikas <topgun9 at gmail.com> writes:
> >>
> >>> The ISP said that they ran a fiber optic wire to a media box at our
> >>> office and from there there is a RJ45 to the switch. They bring no new
> >>> equipment to our premises each time we provison a new port. Hence this
> >>> upload speed limitation is not due to the copper wire.
> >>
> >> So the ISP is being deliberately difficult. I am assuming that their
> >> motivation is that they want to sell E1's instead of the 512kbps
> >> lines.
> >>
> >> You can fight your ISP by installing various multiplexing equipment,
> >> but it's an arms race, and they will probably win it -- losing you as
> >> a customer obviously doesn't worry them, while you're apparently
> >> willing to go to great lengths to stay with them.
> >>
> >> I would recomment just switching to E1 (preferably with a different
> >> provider). It's that or moving HQ to somewhere sane.
> >>
> >>
> >> /Benny
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --
> >>
> >> asterisk-users mailing list
> >> To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
> >>    http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
> > --
> > Alex Balashov
> > Evariste Systems
> > Web    : http://www.evaristesys.com/
> > Tel    : (+1) (678) 954-0670
> > Direct : (+1) (678) 954-0671
> > Mobile : (+1) (678) 237-1775
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --
> >
> > asterisk-users mailing list
> > To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
> >    http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
> --
> Alex Balashov
> Evariste Systems
> Web    : http://www.evaristesys.com/
> Tel    : (+1) (678) 954-0670
> Direct : (+1) (678) 954-0671
> Mobile : (+1) (678) 237-1775
>
> _______________________________________________
> -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --
>
> asterisk-users mailing list
> To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
>   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-users/attachments/20090213/423f1716/attachment.htm