Vista - Multiple broadband accounts and connections in Vista

I have two DSL accounts - each with a different ISP (one for international
and one for local cap due to pricing differences). I like playing online
games (Battlefield 2142) which is quite bandwidth hungry and therefore use
the local account with large cap (and cheaper). Should I need to browse
normally, I will use the international account. Ideally, one would like to
setup a simulateous dialup scenario where traffic is managed across the two
accounts depending on local or international use.

The problem - Vista seems only able to handle one broadband dialup at a
time? I have found a tool called RouteSentry which has been written for this
purpose (it's in beta for Vista). I managed to successfully setup the two
dialup "adaptors" under each account - each configured as a broadband
dial-up. The program doesn't however want to allow two simultaneous
connections, hence my question whether the limitation might be OS specific?

Any suggestions how to fix? My modem is in bridge mode allow for such
connections.

Thank you

On Tue, 8 May 2007 12:59:02 -0700, B007Cyber
<B007Cyber@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>I have two DSL accounts - each with a different ISP (one for international
>and one for local cap due to pricing differences). I like playing online
>games (Battlefield 2142) which is quite bandwidth hungry and therefore use
>the local account with large cap (and cheaper). Should I need to browse
>normally, I will use the international account. Ideally, one would like to
>setup a simulateous dialup scenario where traffic is managed across the two
>accounts depending on local or international use.
>
>The problem - Vista seems only able to handle one broadband dialup at a
>time? I have found a tool called RouteSentry which has been written for this
>purpose (it's in beta for Vista). I managed to successfully setup the two
>dialup "adaptors" under each account - each configured as a broadband
>dial-up. The program doesn't however want to allow two simultaneous
>connections, hence my question whether the limitation might be OS specific?
>
>Any suggestions how to fix? My modem is in bridge mode allow for such
>connections.
>
>Thank you

Since you're mentioning browsing vs gaming as the determining factor in gateway
choice, it sounds like a QOS issue from here. I've seen this question asked in
a number of forums, and usually the Linux firewall experts trot out one of the
custom firewall / routers (MonoWall I believe is a favourite).

I am curious - you start with DSL ("two DSL accounts") then move into dialup
("simulateous dialup scenario"). Is there a reason why you want the computer to
do the routing, or are you open to using a dual WAN router?

--
Cheers,
Chuck, MS-MVP [Windows - Networking]
http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/
Paranoia is not a problem, when it's a normal response from experience.
My email is AT DOT
actual address pchuck mvps org.

Hi Chuck,

I use the terms DSL and dial-up in the same context since I have configured
Vista to use the broadband dial-up feature (i.e. to manually control which
account to dial to). My problem is that I only have 1 DSL line (provided by
the company who has a monopily in SA and no other choices) and 2 ISP accounts
providing the access/cap.

Previously I only had 1 ISP account and then configured my router/modem
(Netgear DG834GT) to handle the internet link/authentication. As stated, the
single ISP account proved to be expensive since it couldn't distinguish
between local and international sites and hence used all my cap for playing
games on local servers (and then normally ran out of my 3Gig allowance before
month end).

I recently purchased a Netgear WNR854T router (Rangemax Next 11n with
built-in Gigabit switch) which has no DSL modem - so I had to setup my
previous router to run in modem mode and use the better router to link my
wireless network (wireless Media Center PC for streaming media, wireless
print server and 2 other desktops needing access to internet).

You mention QOS - is this meant to say I need to consider a Linux solution?
Also, I'm not familiar with MonoWall and will do some further research.

Thanks

Charlie

"Chuck" wrote:

> On Tue, 8 May 2007 12:59:02 -0700, B007Cyber
> <B007Cyber@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>
> >I have two DSL accounts - each with a different ISP (one for international
> >and one for local cap due to pricing differences). I like playing online
> >games (Battlefield 2142) which is quite bandwidth hungry and therefore use
> >the local account with large cap (and cheaper). Should I need to browse
> >normally, I will use the international account. Ideally, one would like to
> >setup a simulateous dialup scenario where traffic is managed across the two
> >accounts depending on local or international use.
> >
> >The problem - Vista seems only able to handle one broadband dialup at a
> >time? I have found a tool called RouteSentry which has been written for this
> >purpose (it's in beta for Vista). I managed to successfully setup the two
> >dialup "adaptors" under each account - each configured as a broadband
> >dial-up. The program doesn't however want to allow two simultaneous
> >connections, hence my question whether the limitation might be OS specific?
> >
> >Any suggestions how to fix? My modem is in bridge mode allow for such
> >connections.
> >
> >Thank you
>
> Since you're mentioning browsing vs gaming as the determining factor in gateway
> choice, it sounds like a QOS issue from here. I've seen this question asked in
> a number of forums, and usually the Linux firewall experts trot out one of the
> custom firewall / routers (MonoWall I believe is a favourite).
>
> I am curious - you start with DSL ("two DSL accounts") then move into dialup
> ("simulateous dialup scenario"). Is there a reason why you want the computer to
> do the routing, or are you open to using a dual WAN router?
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Chuck, MS-MVP [Windows - Networking]
> http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/
> Paranoia is not a problem, when it's a normal response from experience.
> My email is AT DOT
> actual address pchuck mvps org.
>

On Wed, 9 May 2007 08:43:01 -0700, B007Cyber
<B007Cyber@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>"Chuck" wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 8 May 2007 12:59:02 -0700, B007Cyber
>> <B007Cyber@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>>
>> >I have two DSL accounts - each with a different ISP (one for international
>> >and one for local cap due to pricing differences). I like playing online
>> >games (Battlefield 2142) which is quite bandwidth hungry and therefore use
>> >the local account with large cap (and cheaper). Should I need to browse
>> >normally, I will use the international account. Ideally, one would like to
>> >setup a simulateous dialup scenario where traffic is managed across the two
>> >accounts depending on local or international use.
>> >
>> >The problem - Vista seems only able to handle one broadband dialup at a
>> >time? I have found a tool called RouteSentry which has been written for this
>> >purpose (it's in beta for Vista). I managed to successfully setup the two
>> >dialup "adaptors" under each account - each configured as a broadband
>> >dial-up. The program doesn't however want to allow two simultaneous
>> >connections, hence my question whether the limitation might be OS specific?
>> >
>> >Any suggestions how to fix? My modem is in bridge mode allow for such
>> >connections.
>> >
>> >Thank you
>>
>> Since you're mentioning browsing vs gaming as the determining factor in gateway
>> choice, it sounds like a QOS issue from here. I've seen this question asked in
>> a number of forums, and usually the Linux firewall experts trot out one of the
>> custom firewall / routers (MonoWall I believe is a favourite).
>>
>> I am curious - you start with DSL ("two DSL accounts") then move into dialup
>> ("simulateous dialup scenario"). Is there a reason why you want the computer to
>> do the routing, or are you open to using a dual WAN router?

>Hi Chuck,
>
>I use the terms DSL and dial-up in the same context since I have configured
>Vista to use the broadband dial-up feature (i.e. to manually control which
>account to dial to). My problem is that I only have 1 DSL line (provided by
>the company who has a monopily in SA and no other choices) and 2 ISP accounts
>providing the access/cap.
>
>Previously I only had 1 ISP account and then configured my router/modem
>(Netgear DG834GT) to handle the internet link/authentication. As stated, the
>single ISP account proved to be expensive since it couldn't distinguish
>between local and international sites and hence used all my cap for playing
>games on local servers (and then normally ran out of my 3Gig allowance before
>month end).
>
>I recently purchased a Netgear WNR854T router (Rangemax Next 11n with
>built-in Gigabit switch) which has no DSL modem - so I had to setup my
>previous router to run in modem mode and use the better router to link my
>wireless network (wireless Media Center PC for streaming media, wireless
>print server and 2 other desktops needing access to internet).
>
>You mention QOS - is this meant to say I need to consider a Linux solution?
>Also, I'm not familiar with MonoWall and will do some further research.
>
>Thanks
>
>Charlie

Hi Charlie,

I THINK that I get it. You have single line DSL connectivity, and you're using
a pair of PPPoE (that's dial up DSL) accounts??

You are the first person I've met that uses dual homed PPPoE. Your case is the
actual justification behind PPPoE, as it was originally developed.

Single WAN routing, over a dual homed PPPoE, isn't going to be the same as a
simple dual WAN router. You MIGHT get help from the Linux firewall / router
aficionados, but you may be beyond the capability of some of them too.

QOS is the ability for a network device to prioritise network traffic as a
function of its immediate need. Gaming, and streamed audio and video, needs to
be promptly passed, while mere web browsing can wait sometimes. So the browser
gets a lower QOS.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality_of_service>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality_of_service

PPPoE is a DSL function, not a firewall / router issue. Firewalls and routers
are IP devices, and you need DSL experts.

You're using the Microsoft CDO right now. You're going to need to post in comp.
dcom. xdsl . You can use Google Groups for that.
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.dcom.xdsl/>
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.dcom.xdsl/

Check with comp. security. firewalls too, in case the Linux firewall experts
have a solution.
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.security.firewalls/>
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.security.firewalls/

You also might get help in the DSL Reports Networking forum.
<http://www.dslreports.com/forum/sharing>
http://www.dslreports.com/forum/sharing

Whatever you get from the experts, I'd really appreciate hearing from you.

--
Cheers,
Chuck, MS-MVP [Windows - Networking]
http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/
Paranoia is not a problem, when it's a normal response from experience.
My email is AT DOT
actual address pchuck mvps org.

Hi Chuck,

As it stands, XP cannot run multiple PPPoE connections simultaneously, instead there was a protocol developed called "RASPPPoE" which would allow you to create two wan end points on a single dsl line.

Why would you want to do that?

Well, With having two wan endpoints, each endpoint through a different ISP/account we can manage our internet traffic, routing internationally or locally.

Reason?

Local bandwidth is the fraction of the price of international bandwidth.

Now with reference back to xp, You could establish two wan connections using RASPPPoE, then setup the routing tables, or you could use a program developed called "routesentry" which would connect for you and setup the routing automatically.

The big question, Vista:

Does vista have built in support running two PPPoE connections simultaneously? Or should we wait for a third party vendor to create a protocol?

P.S Works beautifully in XP, routing the traffic through each PPPoE account accordingly

RASPPPoE Found here:

RASPPPOE - PPP over Ethernet Protocol by Robert Schlabbach

Routesentry found here:

Antibody Software - Route Sentry - Local/International Traffic Router Utility