# Dual WAN Router



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

Ok so I'm looking for a good dual wan router. The scenario is that with video streaming going on and other various internet tasks I need to get another connection. However information for dual wan routers is slim to none but the costs are from cheap to a new used car.

Anyone have any recomendations for a good dual WAN router that has actually used it? I know a Linux box can do this better but I don't want to go that route. I want something that if there is a problem the wife can just reset and it will be ok. I also understand that it will be an outgoing load balance router because I'm not going into the $1k+ range to get one that does outbound/inbound load balancing.


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

Shades228 said:


> Ok so I'm looking for a good dual wan router. The scenario is that with video streaming going on and other various internet tasks I need to get another connection. However information for dual wan routers is slim to none but the costs are from cheap to a new used car.
> 
> Anyone have any recomendations for a good dual WAN router that has actually used it? I know a Linux box can do this better but I don't want to go that route. I want something that if there is a problem the wife can just reset and it will be ok. I also understand that it will be an outgoing load balance router because I'm not going into the $1k+ range to get one that does outbound/inbound load balancing.


http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=1533874&CatId=198 for one

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/category/category_slc.asp?CatId=198&name=Broadband-Router&

for a listing of all routers.

You ARE using dual DSL or DSL / Cable modem for your WAN sources, right ?


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

I know where to find them but every review that I've read is either complaining about the VPN software, which I don't need, or that people assumed their download speed would double. Some people report flaky connections but I also can't tell if that's because they don't understand what's actually happening.


I'll be using a 7/1.5 DSL and a 10/1.5 cable connection.


----------



## PokerJoker (Apr 12, 2008)

I have a linksys RV042. Not perfect but it seems to work.

The ones by Syswan are supposed to be great. I have one here but it's not hooked up because of some unrelated technical issues.

With certain download methods, your download speed can indeed double, I've seen it happen. But no, not normally.

Some web sites will have fits if the traffic gets spread across both WANs. (any site that uses IP authentication.) The syswan is suppoed to prevent this, but I can't prove yet whether it does. I know that the RV042 sure doesn't.

Keith


----------



## funhouse69 (Mar 26, 2007)

I had a Symantec 200R Router / Firewall a few years ago and it worked great across the 2 wan connections for load balancing. I can't remember who actually made them (it obviously wasn't Symantec) Maybe you can find a used on or something on e-bay they were fairly reasonable price wise. I sold them off a while ago but I'm sure there are some still kicking around.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

PokerJoker said:


> I have a linksys RV042. Not perfect but it seems to work.
> 
> The ones by Syswan are supposed to be great. I have one here but it's not hooked up because of some unrelated technical issues.
> 
> ...


Usually https websites have issues if your router doesn't let you specify a specific WAN to use. Because the packets come from multiple ip's they view it as an attack most of the time. All current routers seem to have this function now.

I was looking at Syswan and Drayteks. I read a little about the Linksys and the Netgear but most reviews were as I stated above. Thanks for your input on them though. I have some more research to do.


----------



## 4HiMarks (Jan 21, 2004)

Shades228 said:


> I'll be using a 7/1.5 DSL and a 10/1.5 cable connection.


I don't understand why you don't just pay one or the other of your ISPs for more bandwidth. Surely that would be cheaper than a completely different connection. Say a business-class SDSL connection.


----------



## CJTE (Sep 18, 2007)

4HiMarks said:


> I don't understand why you don't just pay one or the other of your ISPs for more bandwidth. Surely that would be cheaper than a completely different connection. Say a business-class SDSL connection.


Because when the phone lines go out... Having that cable backer is really nice.
And when I want to do high speed downloads, using the cable connection works well while the rest of the house can use the DSL connection. Why should I manually switch between connections when a router could load-balance that for me?


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

CJTE said:


> Because when the phone lines go out... Having that cable backer is really nice.
> And when I want to do high speed downloads, using the cable connection works well while the rest of the house can use the DSL connection. Why should I manually switch between connections when a router could load-balance that for me?


Or vice versa....

I would too if I could afford it....


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

4HiMarks said:


> I don't understand why you don't just pay one or the other of your ISPs for more bandwidth. Surely that would be cheaper than a completely different connection. Say a business-class SDSL connection.


Where I live those are the highest speeds available.



CJTE said:


> Because when the phone lines go out... Having that cable backer is really nice.
> And when I want to do high speed downloads, using the cable connection works well while the rest of the house can use the DSL connection. Why should I manually switch between connections when a router could load-balance that for me?


Exactly having a backup for when one goes out is nice. I could get 2 cable connections for max speed but having the backup is nicer than having a slightly higher speed on one connection.


----------



## CJTE (Sep 18, 2007)

Shades228 said:


> Where I live those are the highest speeds available.


That's unfortunate. But no one is going to 'do anything' about it unless you aren't actually achieving the speeds your paying for on a regular basis. (I'm referring to averaging peak and non-peak hours). And since they're apparently offering what their advertising, and you're receiving what they're advertising, you're stuck with it. But atleast you've come to terms with that and have moved on 



Shades228 said:


> Exactly having a backup for when one goes out is nice. I could get 2 cable connections for max speed but having the backup is nicer than having a slightly higher speed on one connection.


That's awesome. I wish I could afford to do the same.

By the way... Getting back to topic. I was going to recommend any of the hardware that DD-WRT supports (which I thought I already said but a quick read of my posts in this thread didn't jump out at me), however I was unable to find any of the posts in their user forum. I remember hearing about such a setup around 6 months ago (2 WAN connections being managed by a single router) but nothing seems to be turning up.


----------



## AlbertZeroK (Jan 28, 2006)

Not the same solution, but something I've used in the past. Put in two routers, one at 192.168.0.1, the second at 192.168.0.2. Hook one to DSL, the other to Cable. Then you can leave dhcp turned on in the router you want everyone to us, then give your computer a static ip with the gateway of 192.168.0.2.

We use that trick some times, heck, we even have it at our office where we have a 10M DSL line and 4 public IPs, this allows me to move some of the local boxes to use the second IP hooked to the second router.


----------



## dorfd1 (Jul 16, 2008)

use dd-wrt. it can do load balancing and supports dual wan


----------

