10 ms·

I wasn't familiar with Speedify[1]. It looks like a paid VPN service. A few years ago I lived in an apartment with a complicated bonded WAN setup with the help

by 22c 5y ago

I wasn't familiar with Speedify[1]. It looks like a paid VPN service. A few years ago I lived in an apartment with a complicated bonded WAN setup with the help of some Juniper devices. I was hoping this would be something like a turnkey multipath TCP setup that would run on consumer hardware. It looks like OpenMPTCProuter[2] has made some progress in this space, if anyone is interested. [1] https://speedify.com/ https://speedify.com/ [2] https://www.openmptcprouter.com/ https://www.openmptcprouter.com/

goodburb 5y ago
Have been using it for 2 years, it's great! But OpenMPTCProuter is aggregation only, no seamless failover or redundant channelling and needs an ISP that doesn't filter TCP headers. There is no quality monitoring system, it takes 1 lossy WAN to degrade total throughput. A cold boot with a master WAN down will disable aggregation. It's difficult to setup but it's useful for specific cases. Checkout the comparison in the README
- 22c 5y ago
  I couldn't find what you were referring to, but I did note that OpenMPTCRouter is at least partially built upon Glorytun[1] which seems to support failover, so perhaps it is something that OpenMPTCRouter will eventually implement. [1] https://github.com/angt/glorytun https://github.com/angt/glorytun
  - goodburb 5y ago
    OMR is using a SOCKS for proxying TCP over MPTCP. Glorytun UDP is a VPN, choosing that in OMR will disable MPTCP and the proxy, although the author seems to have dropped the support for the reasons below. OMR is currently using a an optimized fork of a very old version of Gtun TCP[1] to tunnel non TCP streams over the bonding proxy. Gtun UDP doesn't reorder packets nor auto adjust weight making it effectively poor when using different links, not an issue if you're using same ISP and equal hardware. QUIC is also blocked due to the large overhead : MPTCP->SOCKS->TCP->UDP<-Client Any UDP service/streaming will perform poorly as a result. There are few MLVPN forks for non-equal WAN bonding and seamless failover, "UBOND"[2] does not require preset speed for each WAN, nor reorder buffer tweaking. [1] https://github.com/angt/glorytun/tree/tcp https://github.com/angt/glorytun/tree/tcp [2] https://github.com/markfoodyburton/ubond https://github.com/markfoodyburton/ubond
elzbardico 5y ago
Never had a good experience with Speedify, never worked as advertised.
- gardnr 5y ago
  I also did not get any benefit from it when I tried it in 2017. Granted it was New Caledonia. The connections are provided by a single state run telecom with no competition. The internet is shit there. Later, I tried bonding for speed in other countries and it always was slower or the same as one connection. You are better off with a Peplink device and their SpeedFusion service. At least you can host it yourself in cloud providers and control how much bandwidth it gets. Edit: I have one of these: https://www.peplinkworks.com/max-transit-duo.asp https://www.peplinkworks.com/max-transit-duo.asp
  - ldoughty 5y ago
    Can you share pricing? Appreciate the link, but half the page is "get a quote"
    - gardnr 5y ago
      It depends on which country you live in and what types of WANs you want. Mine has 2 LTE-A WANs as well as ethernet WANs. It cost $1200 NZD which means it could probably be around $600 USD in the USA. You can find cheaper models if you only have 1 LTE WAN + 1 ethernet WAN. I also have a Nighthawk M2 which is an LTE "router" with a battery that has an ethernet port. At one point I had that plugged into the ethernet WAN port so I had 3 LTE modems going at the same time. This is obviously beneficial when there are multiple carriers in the area with their own infrastructure.
  - AlexGizis 5y ago
    Oh, I remember you! We've made major changes to the protocol since then. Connections with as much latency and loss as you had cannot be maxxed out by a single TCP connection. We now default to a mode that uses up to 8 TCP connections in parallel on each internet connection to let us reach the full speed of connections even if they have latency and loss that limits the performance of TCP. We'd love to get you to try it again. Email us at support@speedify.com and we'd get you a license to reevaluate.

by 22c 5y ago

goodburb 5y ago

Have been using it for 2 years, it's great! But OpenMPTCProuter is aggregation only, no seamless failover or redundant channelling and needs an ISP that doesn't filter TCP headers. There is no quality monitoring system, it takes 1 lossy WAN to degrade total throughput. A cold boot with a master WAN down will disable aggregation. It's difficult to setup but it's useful for specific cases. Checkout the comparison in the README

22c 5y ago
I couldn't find what you were referring to, but I did note that OpenMPTCRouter is at least partially built upon Glorytun[1] which seems to support failover, so perhaps it is something that OpenMPTCRouter will eventually implement. [1] https://github.com/angt/glorytun https://github.com/angt/glorytun
- goodburb 5y ago
  OMR is using a SOCKS for proxying TCP over MPTCP. Glorytun UDP is a VPN, choosing that in OMR will disable MPTCP and the proxy, although the author seems to have dropped the support for the reasons below. OMR is currently using a an optimized fork of a very old version of Gtun TCP[1] to tunnel non TCP streams over the bonding proxy. Gtun UDP doesn't reorder packets nor auto adjust weight making it effectively poor when using different links, not an issue if you're using same ISP and equal hardware. QUIC is also blocked due to the large overhead : MPTCP->SOCKS->TCP->UDP<-Client Any UDP service/streaming will perform poorly as a result. There are few MLVPN forks for non-equal WAN bonding and seamless failover, "UBOND"[2] does not require preset speed for each WAN, nor reorder buffer tweaking. [1] https://github.com/angt/glorytun/tree/tcp https://github.com/angt/glorytun/tree/tcp [2] https://github.com/markfoodyburton/ubond https://github.com/markfoodyburton/ubond

elzbardico 5y ago

Never had a good experience with Speedify, never worked as advertised.

gardnr 5y ago
I also did not get any benefit from it when I tried it in 2017. Granted it was New Caledonia. The connections are provided by a single state run telecom with no competition. The internet is shit there. Later, I tried bonding for speed in other countries and it always was slower or the same as one connection. You are better off with a Peplink device and their SpeedFusion service. At least you can host it yourself in cloud providers and control how much bandwidth it gets. Edit: I have one of these: https://www.peplinkworks.com/max-transit-duo.asp https://www.peplinkworks.com/max-transit-duo.asp
- ldoughty 5y ago
  Can you share pricing? Appreciate the link, but half the page is "get a quote"
  - gardnr 5y ago
    It depends on which country you live in and what types of WANs you want. Mine has 2 LTE-A WANs as well as ethernet WANs. It cost $1200 NZD which means it could probably be around $600 USD in the USA. You can find cheaper models if you only have 1 LTE WAN + 1 ethernet WAN. I also have a Nighthawk M2 which is an LTE "router" with a battery that has an ethernet port. At one point I had that plugged into the ethernet WAN port so I had 3 LTE modems going at the same time. This is obviously beneficial when there are multiple carriers in the area with their own infrastructure.
- AlexGizis 5y ago
  Oh, I remember you! We've made major changes to the protocol since then. Connections with as much latency and loss as you had cannot be maxxed out by a single TCP connection. We now default to a mode that uses up to 8 TCP connections in parallel on each internet connection to let us reach the full speed of connections even if they have latency and loss that limits the performance of TCP. We'd love to get you to try it again. Email us at support@speedify.com and we'd get you a license to reevaluate.