Infrastrcutre question


#1

Hi,

First, please excuse my english, sometimes it is not understandly ;).

So, I just discover you solution, and I’m not sure where I can post to have more information. So, I try on this thread.

First, some technical question (it is for an infrastructure of 1 fusionhub and several organization):

  • did the solution put some latency? Hown much? For exemple, if I have 2 adsl of 60ms latency each, what will be my final latency?
  • Can I give a separate IP address for each organization, in front of fusionhub? Or they share the same IP address?
  • It is really a link aggregation, not only a packet balancing. So, If I’m the only user, and try to download a 1Go file, with 2 adsl of 20mbps, I can download it at 40mbps (maybe a little less, like 38Mbps), or I’m limitied to the max of 1 adsl ?
  • what happen on latency and bandwith if I have 2 different kind of access, like an adsl (20/1) and an SDSL (4/4) ?

You write, on fusion hub: "Supports 5 peers, 25Mbps throughput. ". 5 peers is what? 5 balance 20/30/50 ? or 5 link (and a balance 50 is already 5 peers)? SO, can I put 5 different organization, or not? ANd 25mbps, is not a lot. Is it the max capability of use? Or it is a software limitation?

ANd finaly, do you have price for VOIP distributor/resselor? As I want/need to propose this solution to my customer, I have a real interest to sell this. And I have 3 customer immediatly interested by this solution (2 of them with 2 link and the third with 3 link). How can I test the solution with less cost?

Thank you for your quick answer!
Regads.
Olivier


#2

Hi Olivier,

In answer to your technical questions:
Latency - when using VPN bonding across multiple links, the resultant latency will be in the region of that of the highest latency link in use.
External IPs on Fusionhub - All remote peers (or customers) will share the same External IP - Fusionhub has been designed for consumer bandwidth bonding.

It is VPN Bonding, so yes all available bandwidth will be aggregated. Ultimately the available bandwidth to a single remote user will depend on a number of factors (ie Link Quality / Packet Loss / Jitter / Latency etc), but in general we suggest an estimated aggregate bandwidth of the WAN links in use minus 15-20% (for VPN overhead).

When multiple WAN links are combined of different types things get a little more complicated in real world deployment scenarios. Key variables are Latency & Jitter of individual WAN links, quality of the links, and available bandwidth. VPN bonding always works best with high quality links of a similar type and bandwidth availability. In your example of a 20/1Mbps and a 4/4Mbps link If we add the bandwidth together and -20% for VPN overhead we get a resultant VPN bonded bandwidth availability of 19.2Mbps ([20+4]*0.8) Down and 4Mbps ([4+1]*0.8) Up . However remember VPN bonding isn’t just about bandwidth aggregation it also provides packet level WAN failover too.

A Peer is a remote device, that device can have up to 13 WAN connections (if you were using a Balance 1350 remotely for instance). You’re right that the entry level Fusionhub license has a fairly low bandwidth limit - this is because we designed this license with rural locations in mind where a DSL with even 1Mbps is often rare. Here in the UK we have customers whose DSL can be 250Kbps for example. This bandwidth limit is a licensed limit. If you need more bandwidth then you will need a larger Fusionhub license or perhaps to consider a physical Balance Appliance.

We are always interested in opportunities with new partners. You can register you interest in becoming a partner by visiting our website and clicking on the Partner Sign Up link in the Partners menu at the top of the screen.


#3

Hi Martin,

Thank to your answer. I look more on the website, after write this post, and I see that bandwith aggregated are not a function of Balance 20/30/50 is it true? For now, I search a solution for some little customer, like small administration, camping, … Who are in"campagn", somewhere there are no fiber… Only adsl, and for some of them just a small connection…

Good information about device. About bandwith, the limit is up? down? both? I understand that it is a licensed limit, no problem. Yes, maybe a physical appliance can be a good choice, in second time. In first time, I think that a fusionhub can be enough.

Thank you for your time.
Regards.


#4

Hi Olivier,

Yes you’re right, the Balance 20/30/50 do not come with SpeedFusion Bonding capability. That is because for most people link load balancing is normally sufficient.

Lets take your camp-site deployment as an example, that will likely have multiple customer devices connecting to the internet at the same time, people running apps on their smartphones, accessing the internet on their tablets, and laptops etc.

Imagine a laptop with an email client running, dropbox/file sharing, internet access using a browser with multiple tabs open, and perhaps streaming online radio - that is a large number of different application sessions - all fairly low bandwidth, all coming from the same device.

So you have many devices, all creating multiple sessions to the internet. Link load balancing is perfect for distributing these multiple sessions across multiple links. And in your example above where you have two WANs with different bandwidth availability (20Mbps and 4Mbps) because there is no VPN bonding overhead you can use all of the available bandwidth. Also because the Balance range can accept almost any IP connection on its WANs you can mix and match lots of different access technologies, so xDSL of course but also Satellite Internet too which can be a great source of bandwidth in rural locations. You can also plugin a 3G/4G USB dongle to the Balance and with 4G networks getting better and better all the time, this can often be a great source of bandwidth too.

I had a colleague who could only get 385Kbps on DSL in his village but could get 7Mbps on 3G (hspa+)… always consider alternative bandwidth options.

VPN bonding is normally used when an ultra reliable connection to the internet is needed (so packet level failover across WANs) or when there is a specific type of traffic in a single stream or from a single device session that needs more bandwidth than a single WAN link at that location can provide.

I’m pretty sure the licensed Bandwidth limitation on the Fusionhub is a bi-directional limit (although I have just asked engineering to confirm to be sure).

Thanks,
Martin