![]() Flow based is load balancing no packet aggregation hence why they suggest to use it for TCP streams. MLVPN was designed for equal latencies but with large tolerance and failover.Īnyways can’t wait till they actually implement these features as they’re only documented, the basic multi path function barely works, even then automatic detection and buffer length is necessary for dynamic links like cellular and residential internet, this is missing in Zerotier, reordering buffer is needed for non equal links, UDP and QUIC will run fine. Vtrunkd is abandoned and unfinished as it moved to commercial, it’s very similar to Speedify, offers redundancy and aggregation.Īuto weighing and reordering are not needed for combining two equal gateways from the same ISP and identical hardware, you can get away with bonding two OpenVPN clients tied per each WAN interface in pfSense, or using Linux Ethernet bonding if the jitter and latency is very low. MLVPN doesn’t have a functional reordering buffer, no auto weighing, and aggregation only. Glorytun for aggregation only but without reordering the packets (bad for TCP with different links) and no automatic weighing yet. There is FEC when encryption is enabled which is a bonus for lossy wireless connections.Įdit: Regarding OSS alternatives, there is a project called “Engarde” that is a middleware for Wireguard to duplicate data for redundancy only. Speedify seems to have a huge reordering buffer, saturating each WAN will cause a small fixed bufferbloat. A bad connection will be removed from aggregation but is still used in the redundant channel. You can combine different links with different speeds and latencies, however it takes time for the speed to ramp up when adding more than 3 WANs while weighing and monitoring history for quality rating score per WAN. There is more info in the README.md page. With video calls, thin streams, large downloads, and a low quality network will cause Speedify to route the calls and sensitive thin streams to the redundant channel while aggregating the bulk downloads, bulk downloads can handle packet loss and small disruptions, no real time requirments, this works with “Streaming mode” enabled. Redundant duplicates data across WANs while aggregate channel bonds across them. Routing each stream to these channels being application aware. There are channels for different streams: aggregation/bonding channel, mirroring/redundant channel. The more you aggregate WANs the less the reliability hence why Speedify includes a basic SD-WAN, other solutions are equivalent to a RAID 0 hard drive storage in terms of reliability. Apple uses their own MPTCP “fork” to work around this, it’s mainly used for data migration in video calls. Residential grade internet is not reliable enough for MPTCP, let alone combining cellular with wired unless one of them is very reliable and set as master. You can have 3 WANs up and 1 down that happens to be a master and experience a loss of connectivity on reboot or power up. MPTCP doesn’t work if the client cold start with the master interface down. There is no seamless failover, and having one WAN going lossy will disrupt connectivity. OMR is excellent for bonding over a gigabit as tested by few contributors, it’s not designed for lossy networks. (VPN->Mptcp->proxy->tcp VPN for non TCP, TCP over TCP over TCP) MPTCP requires an ISP that doesn’t filter TCP headers which is uncommon, OMR solves this by using another VPN per WAN which decreases performance and cause bufferbloat. ![]() UDP and non-TCP flows are second class citizens, a TCP VPN is used to route these flows over the proxy. Bonding is done via a TCP proxy for TCP only as a side effect having MPTCP enabled per WAN. There is a great project by the name OpenMPTCProuter(OMR) that makes use of it. MPTCP is for TCP aggregation, it’s not a tunnel. It’s nowhere easy to implement with different links.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |