I have a horrible feeling this is a stupid question, and, if so, I apologise in advance!
I’ve spent the last 4 days playing with settings on a TP-Link TL-R470T+ and trying to get it to combine two internet connections to create a faster one. I’m sorry to say that I have experienced a greater degree of failure than success, and therefore decided to look at other Multi-WAN balancing routers which promised to produce faster internet speeds.
At which point, I saw a commenter on Amazon raving about Peplink, and how he’d get a Peplink over TP-Link / Linksys / Netgear any time.
And so, sensing an end to my misery, and in a sudden burst of enthusiasm, I decided to look into Peplink… but now I’m more confused than ever!
I have 2 x 13/1 Mbps connections and 1 x 10/0.5Mbps connection, for use purely at home, because I like fast internet.
Would a Peplink Balance 50 give me the result I so desperately desire?!
When the Peplink Balance router is deployed in a stand-alone method it will perform session-based internet link load balancing with automatic failover. It will also combine the bandwidth of all links and make the whole sum available to all the network users, making it ideal for networks with multiple users.
If you need to do packet level bonding to achieve a faster connection for a single session or download then this would require the use of our SpeedFusion VPN technology.
Can you please help me to understand the most cost effective way to implement SpeedFusion, while maximising my 3 internet connections?
As I now understand it, this could achieved either in a standalone situation, using FusionHub +AWS, or with 2 SpeedFusion-enabled devices, but I’m still unclear as to what these should be.
Option 1 - Standalone
In order to get the most from my 3 WAN connections, I would need, at minimum, the Balance 310 + FusionHub with AWS. Correct?
If so, can you please give me an idea as to which FusionHub license I would need, along with a rough idea of what AWS would charge? I spent hours last night trying to figure this out and I’m still none the wiser.
Option 2 - 2 SpeedFusion-ready devices
I live out in rural Thailand and have a friend in the UK with 1 or 2 fibre connections, much faster than anything available to me. Could we set up SpeedFusion between us? If so, which Peplink models would we need?
Finally, is there an Option 3 which would be more suitable for my situation?
Thank you very much for your time. This is not my area of expertise and I am struggling somewhat!
Any specific requirement that triggered you for the bonding solution ? For example, minimum bandwidth for the application to run is 20 Mbps while the available bandwidth for each WAN is only 13Mbps thus you need a bonding solutions ?
Basically when work on the solutions design, we need to have the specific requirement to consider whether the solution design is valuable compare against effort and costs involved. Base on your request, look like you just want to increase the the internet bandwidth, thus bandwidth aggregation on internet Link Load Balancing should be able to meet your requirements. Do note that, internet browsing speed also relief on the remote server, in most of time internet browsing connection should not occupied all the available bandwidth for the WAN or Bonded WANs and session load balance should work well on this.
Again, the Option 1 - Standalone & Option 2 - 2 SpeedFusion-ready devices or any options as mention above should work well to bond again the available WANs. Make sure you consider the following for the expected SpeedFusion bonded performance:
a. Bandwidth Overhead for IPSEC/SpeedFusion
b. Point to Point available speeds
You can have 13Mbps for the WANs, not mean that the point to point will going to have 13Mbps. You should consider against the International & Local connection speeds between the 2 devices.
Regarding to your question which model should be used, please refer to the attached URL:
I suppose the main interest in SpeedFusion bonding is that I understand (possibly incorrectly!), that by bonding with someone who has fast fibre connections (2 x 100/20 Mbps = total 200/40 Mbps), I would effectively get the same speeds as him when going on the internet. Is that correct?
Or would I ‘only’ get the combined speed from whatever ISP connections I had plugged into the Peplink Balance at my end?
In any event, am I right in thinking that it would be sufficient for each end to use a Peplink Balance ONE Core (with SpeedFusion bonding license), or would at least one of us need the Balance 201/301?
The reasons for wanting faster internet than 1 x 13 Mbps?
1 - 1080p Videoconferencing around the world;
2 - I’d like to backup my 16TB iTunes collection to the cloud, which is currently unfeasible;
3 - Faster downloads of 5GB+ files;
4 - HD Netflix.
I now finally understand how SpeedFusion bonding works! Many thanks for bearing with me, and for your detailed reply. I really appreciate it.
4 weeks ago I was (barely) coping with a 10/0.5 Mbps ADSL connection.
2 weeks ago I got a 13/1 Mbps WINET connection to use as my main connection, with the intention to swap it out for the ADSL if it failed.
Last week I heard about load balancing, (thought it meant ‘bonding’) and bought a TP-Link TL-R470T+Load Balancer, but I can’t get it to do anything except make my internet access slow to a complete, unusable, crawl.
4 days ago I learned about Peplink.
Today I will order a Peplink Balance 50!
Thank you again, so much, for helping me to work through this process. I look forward to enjoying Peplink’s renowned load aggregation very soon.
Good Evening Edward
If you have 3x ADSL connections balanced (not bonded) with a Balance 30 or 50, it tends to actually give the feeling of a bonded connection.
The load balancing can be done in a few different ways but the settings strait out of the box are pretty good.
Three ADSL links that are pretty similar would balance nicely.
The advantage of Bonding is session persistence e.g. a session link Skype can flawlessly be moved across the different WANs. If you where balancing and the Skype session was down WAN 1 when WAN 1 fails, the Skype call would fail and you would need to recall with the session going down a different WAN (automatically done by the Balancer)
Thank you very much for your feedback. I certainly get the impression that Peplink’s renowned balancing algorithms could improve my internet experience (and that of my family) no end. However, I also work from home, and use Skype, FaceTime and other 1080P video conferencing software on a regular basis, so VOIP is crucial.
Unfortunately, being limited to 1 Mbps upstream, I often receive comments from people in other countries (with extremely good connections!) about the poor quality of the picture they’re receiving. This doesn’t reflect well on me or my business.
Having been persuaded by sitloongs yesterday that I would be better off forgetting SpeedFusion for now, I was then offered a Rev 2/3 Balance 310 at a significant discount by the local Peplinks reseller. As you might imagine, this rekindled my real desire to put SpeedFusion to the test for myself, using FusionHub on AWS. After all, if it works as described, I could get conceivably enjoy 36/2.5 Mbps, which would surely help with VOIP, and everything else!
My only concern stems from not really understanding the products very well (I’ve never even seen one in real life), and therefore not knowing whether it’s sensible to start my Peplinks journey with technology that was first introduced in 2011 and replaced by the Rev 4 model 18 months ago.
I understand that throughput is less than can be expected on the Rev 4 model, and that there are 4 LAN ports compared with 7, but nothing else.
Is it the same as with computers? I would never recommend anyone switching from Windows to Mac to start off by buying a 2 year-old machine, so perhaps that’s my answer…
Oh Lord, I think I’ve just talked myself into a $3,000 purchase. Considering where I started my link aggregation journey last week ($50 TP-Link TLR-470T+), this is quite a jump!
Do you, or anyone else, have any opinion on this? Is there anyone out there running a Rev 2/3 Balance 310 who has a strong opinion on the matter?
Look like you have a concerns whether or not to go for B310 HW 2/3 compare to the B310 HW4.
You are right, the only different for HW 2/3 are the performance and the physical interface. The hardware upgrade/refreshment is mainly to gather the market needs that requires more performance & physical interface for small Business network. Basically all the firmware/software feature for B310 HW 2/3 & HW4 are the same.
Out of that, as for now :
Firmware support for B310 HW 2/3 & HW4 are the same
Hardware support for B310 HW 2/3 & HW4 are the same
Support services for B310 HW 2/3 & HW4 are the same
As long as the Balance HW 2/3 able to meet your requirements, you will enjoys the same features for the B310 HW 2/3 with the B310 HW4
I’m sorry to add to this thread, but I find myself with another question (or two), sorry.
The Balance 310 I ordered is due to arrive on Monday, and I was planning on using it with FusionHub. However, having spent more time looking into what it would actually cost to run on a 24/7/365 basis, I have to admit I’ve been more than a little shocked! (In retrospect I should have done this legwork before ordering the 310, and it is the realisation of this fact that is fuelling my current investigations.)
I therefore started looking at other options, and the one that seems most appealing at the moment is for me to give my 310 to my brother-in-law (BIL), who lives in Bangkok, and for me to get a 580 (rather than buy my friend in the UK a 380 and me have the 310!).
Living in rural Thailand, I am currently only able to get up to 13/1 Mbps connections, and the 5 WAN ports on the 580 would allow me to create a bonded connection of 65/5 Mbps, well within the 580’s SpeedFusion limit of 200 Mbps. Living in town, BIL can cheaply and easily match the 310’s max SpeedFusion throughput of 50 Mbps with 3 WANs.
As far as I had understood it, we could then set up a SpeedFusion link between us, and leave it running all the time. Life would be rosy, with each of us enjoying “unbreakable” encrypted internet connections at all times. First of all, is this true? It’s not just encrypted between us, is it?
Secondly, sitloong’s comment about requiring extra bandwidth gave me pause for thought. Does this mean that my traffic will get run through BIL’s ISP(s) and BIL’s through mine, as well as our own, possibly doubling our individual traffic?
That said, assuming we have no limits on downstream / upstream bandwidth, and I don’t believe we have, is there any need for concern?
Is there anything else of which I should be aware when considering this scenario? Or is it really as simple as Balance A connects to Balance B with SpeedFusion, and life becomes better?
When you get the 580, just try to set it up in “Balance” mode as follows. This is on a large yacht and the two BR1’s are LTE 30/15 Mbps via ATT. The Globesurfer is HSDPA+ GSM so at best 14Mbps but it is on a limited T-Mobile plan. The VSAT is 3/1 Mbps when none of the other connections have service, but for least cost routing it is set at a lower priority. If you’re running speed tests then my experience is that you’ll generally not see any greater speed than your single fastest connection. Make sure and also setup the priorities on the inbound DNS for best performance. Again, this is load balancing and not bonding as you’ve already noted. Have you considered adding BR1’s if you have LTE service for mission critical times like the video conferencing? You could switch them in when you need them like we do with the VSAT, but leave them off for other general usage such as the family. Good luck and post back here how it goes!
Many thanks for taking the time to reply, and for your detailed feedback on how you’re using the various Peplink mobile devices; it sounds like quite a setup!
I did think about getting a mobile device, but the models that support SpeedFusion cost more than the 301. In addition, I thought it would be a nice gesture to improve my brother-in-law’s internet experience if possible.
Whilst I understand that I could just use the 580 in Balance mode, it seems a shame to waste its abilities. Having (perhaps foolishly) ignored the advice that was given on this forum (twice! :o) to buy the Balance 50, I really would like to get SpeedFusion up and running.
Are you (or is anyone else) aware of any negative aspects of SpeedFusion? @sitloongs implied that it might cause a problem due to increased bandwidth usage on both ends due to all traffic being routed through the other’s ISP. Have I understood that correctly? If so, as long as the ISPs at both ends offer unlimited bandwidth, presumably it’s OK?
Is there anything else?
All the diagrams on the SpeedFusion product page demonstrate usage scenarios that I understand to be 24/7/365, ‘always on’. Is there any reason why I couldn’t set it up in the same way with a 580 and a 310, each with roughly 50 Mbps total WAN throughput?
First, the 580 has a USB WAN port on it so you could put an inexpensive Cellular USB dongle or device in to it for fail-over or even primary use if you have really good cell service there. If you have LTE then that may in fact be much faster than your other WAN’s at 13/1. Do five WAN’s at 13/1 and the USB with whatever and you’ll be cooking!
I think what @sitloongs was implying is that there is overhead for SpeedFusion which won’t be a problem with your down speeds but may be with your slow 1Mbps upload speeds. So you may get >1.5 or a bit higher up with 2x 13/1’s, but is the complexity worth it for you? If the bonding on the down speeds is the primary focus then go for it. Going full boat with say 5 13/1’s would make this point moot, but you get the idea.
SpeedFusion is basically a VPN so the encryption is only between the Peplink units, not for all internet traffic…
You’re gonna Love Peplink and it’s all we use. We have everything from 580’s to Balance 30’s (LTE), Max 700’s, BR1’s and AP One AC Mini’s deployed in numerous installations. The remote management Incontrol2 side of it is very useful and powerful. Go to www.incontrol2.com and setup an account now then you can easily add in and manage all three units directly without remoting in via a local CPU. Just make sure IC2 is enabled on the three units.
Thanks again for taking the time to reply; I really do appreciate it!
OK, so there are no real downsides to SpeedFusion, and my plan to set up a 580 here with 5 x 13/1 Mbps (and 4G backup) and a 310 with 50/17 Mbps in my BIL’s apartment in town will work. Fantastic news (although I’m a little bit jealous of BIL’s 17 Mbps upstream bandwidth!!!)
Thank you also for confirming the question of the VPN. I did have a slight misunderstanding of how it worked, and thought it also somehow encrypted all internet traffic. Not to worry.
I am quite sure I’m going to love Peplink! I’ve spent the last week devouring every bit of information I can find about Peplink / SpeedFusion, including scouring the forum and Amazon for user reviews, and I can honestly say I’ve not been this excited about “stuff” for more than a decade.
Thank you again, very much, for clarifying those points. I can now place an order for a 580 in full confidence that I’m on the right path.
I forgot to thank you for this tip, which I would have overlooked. This means I can enable IC2 on the 310 when it arrives, and then set everything up for him from here once he gets his new internet connections. This is a massive help, thank you again!