Thanks Kevin, that narrows down my choices. So instead of the Max -on-the-go I am considering the Max 700 which will give me true SpeedFusion bonding rather than Wan Smoothing. Then I assume that the Max 700 configured for bonding would connect to either the (HW-1) 310 with FW 5.4.x OR the Fusion hub up in the Amazon Cloud EC2. Thus I would have redundant choices on the destination of the backhaul. Please confirm that I can have bonded cell up into the internet, and then down to the 310 on my Gbit fiber. This would allow video broadcasting from the field to my office at the combined pipe speed less additional overhead per your paper. If so I will buy the Max 700 for my development testing.
Then one final question puzzles me. I have configured many routers but never in this particular configuration. Assume I want to end up streaming to YouTube live. I understand the path from the Max 700 in the field, over several cell connections, maybe ethernet or wifi if available uplink, then across the internet to my office fiber downlink connected to the 310. That would be similar to a hardware to hardware VPN. BUT from there I assume there is some routing configuration that would combine the packets, and then send it back out the 310 to YouTube based upon the routing table for the YouTube IP number. I am confused about how the data goes from the 310 after the backhaul and demuxing, back out the 310 to its final destination (YouTube) since obviously I cannot install Peplink hardware at YouTube. If I cannot do this with the 310, I do have other external IP#s and routers on my office fiber, and could possibly route from the 310 to another router, and then out back onto the internet then to YouTube.
I would assume the same would be the case with the Fusionhub in the Amazon Cloud. The routing would be from the Max 700 in the field, backhauled to the FusionHub on an Amazon EC2 server, and then back out of that server to the Amazon backbone to its destination at YouTube.
I just want to make sure that these three products (new version of Max 700, and Fusionhub, and older 310 with 5.4.x) can be setup this way, not necessarily how it is done. So long as it can be done, I can likely figure it out when the products all get here. Am I on the right track with this configuration?
And thanks for your paper and tips. There is a reason I am interested in the USB LTE modems rather than in-built modems. I have by studying this current Peplink deployment, discovered that there have been not-so-well-known advances in G4 LTE technology. Verizon now has since about 2104 XLTE which supposedly is the addition of a different radio frequency band that works when there is too much congestion on the normal (non XLTE) bands. Older modems and cell phones do not have XLTE capability. It would be complex to discover if the Peplink in-built modems are XLTE capable now or not. Worse yet, I expect more advances like this before G5 technology rolls out, but if I have in-built modems those cannot be readily swapped out to newer ones for whatever each carrier comes up with. So, by using USB dongle, it is future proofing the Peplink to some degree.
For the same reason I am favoring Peplink over Teredek since Teredek tends to include the video encoder, and decoder as part of the bonding hardware. While this is handy and convenient, the encoder CODEC’s are always changing. Indeed H.264 is popular now, but is soon to be replaced with H.265 when they get licensing worked out. So by having the modems, and encoders/decoders as separate hardware from the router, I am hoping that I can just replace modems, and encoders over time, but still keep the Peplink equipment going, especially if I buy redundancy in case of breakdown or failure. An all-in-one black box solution leaves me behind when newer cellular or video CODEC solutions roll out.
I look forward to hearing from anyone who disagrees with this logic or my anticipated configuration, as my moving from on demand to live broadcasting is new to my company and we are in a steep learning curve on this.