I guess the question is, what Rich needs more urgently, more aggregate rate or more single-flow performance?
Then for bonding one needs a dedicated head-end device on the internet side of things, while mwan3 on the router alone should work with any independent links for failover and load sharing, IIRC.

Best Regards
Sebastian

On 3 May 2020 16:33:56 CEST, Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> wrote:
not huge on bonding, simpler to just get the two uplinks and split
flows across them with an sqm instance for each and a tc hash
directing flows at one or another.

On Sun, May 3, 2020 at 7:30 AM Daniel Sterling
<sterling.daniel@gmail.com> wrote:
>
When I had both DSL and cable modem, I compiled Linux with this patch set to make multi gateway NAT work and it worked great

http://ja.ssi.bg/#routes

Should be able to use that plus ifb+cake on each NIC to do the right thing, aye?

As an aside, I'm kind of furious that NAT fix never got merged upstream :( it's so useful for multiple uplinks

-- Dan

On May 3, 2020, at 10:23 AM, Rich Brown <richb.hanover@gmail.com> wrote:

Given the crummy internet service in my area (DSL, max of 15mbps/1mbps), I wonder if we could improve things by getting a second connection from our ISP and "bonding" the two links together in my OpenWrt router.

I see both Multiwan (which is self-described as old) and mwan3.

But neither would seem to offer the kinds of latency control (SQM/fq_codel/cake) that the cool kids in networking have come to expect.

Any recommendations from this group for such an effort? Thanks.

Rich
Bloat mailing list
Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
Bloat mailing list
Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat



--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.