From owner-freebsd-hackers  Wed Mar 20 07:28:57 1996
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id HAA08721
          for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 20 Mar 1996 07:28:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from asstdc.scgt.oz.au (root@asstdc.scgt.oz.au [202.14.234.65])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id HAA08714
          for <hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>; Wed, 20 Mar 1996 07:28:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from imb@localhost)
	by asstdc.scgt.oz.au (8.6.12/BSD4.4)
	id CAA29139; Thu, 21 Mar 1996 02:27:46 +1100
From: michael butler <imb@scgt.oz.au>
Message-Id: <199603201527.CAA29139@asstdc.scgt.oz.au>
Subject: PPP bonding ..
To: lehey.pad@sni.de (Greg Lehey)
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 02:27:45 +1100 (EST)
Cc: jkh@time.cdrom.com, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
In-Reply-To: <199603201316.OAA28458@nixpbe.pdb.sni.de> from "Greg Lehey" at Mar 20, 96 02:14:03 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24beta]
Content-Type: text
Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

Greg Lehey writes:

> If anybody either side of the pond can give any input on channel bonding,
> I'd be grateful, and I'm sure Gary will be too.

Speaking of bonding .. what's needed to allow two modem-based PPP interfaces
link to the same destination ? As far as I can tell ..

i) you need one "virtual interface" at the route socket level with path
splitting underneath it.

ii) the "splitter" needs to have an intimate knowledge of the transmit queue
lengths of each of the paths in order to choose the one with the least
latency. 

iii) Possibly, with assymetric or paths of different speed, some weighting
needs to be applied in addition to simple length assessment.

What else needs to be addressed ? Can this be (realistically) done by
hacking on ijppp or is it a kernel-only job ?

Linux seems to have this capability .. do we want (need ?) to be compatible
with them ?

	michael