MLPPP twarts Bell throttling?

Colin McGregor colin.mc151-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w at
Wed Jul 2 19:14:10 UTC 2008

On 7/2/08, Jamon Camisso <jamon.camisso-H217xnMUJC0sA/PxXw9srA at> wrote:
> D. Hugh Redelmeier wrote:
>> According to the first DSLreports forum entry on this thread, ML PPP
>> avoids Bell throttling.
>> Has anyone tried this?  Do the traditional Linux PPPoE stacks support ML
>> PPP?  Do your ISPs support it?
>> Intriguing, but I have not done any investigation.
> I should not have to have 2 DSL lines to get the (un-throttled) service
> to which I am accustomed and that TekSavvy (my ISP) predicate selling
> their service upon.
> While technically interesting, that people have resorted to such
> measures, even as an academic exercise, is the disturbing part.
> Jamon

Dave Gilbert is one of the regulars at the Unix Unanimous meetings and
is involved with a tiny local ISP. A product that Dave's ISP offers is
router that sends all packets out via two routes (normally cable and
DSL). The idea being that good software will throw away the 2nd packet
to arrive. This has two big advantages, if one connection goes down
the end user basicly doesn't notice and it stomps on the packet
filtering currently used by Bell/Rogers. The bad news being, talk
about a waste of badwidth, and the cost of two high speed

Still, Dave's ISP I would gather had a steady, if modest market for
the special router, all to people who had to have an always up
Internet connection (the odds of both DSL and cable being down at the
same time, while non-zero is exceptionally low). Not sure how much of
a help the current packet shaping nonsense is to his firm, but it can
not hurt...

Colin McGregor
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings:
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns

More information about the Legacy mailing list