BondingShouldBeFree VPN

[Daniel Golle]

On Sat, May 23, 2026 at 03:00:50PM +0200, Jonas Lochmann wrote:
> I am combining multiple internet connections since many years for
> companies based on cheap consumer internet connections. So I know
> the topic and the possible solutions.
> 
> When I looked last time into it, MPTCP was basically nowhere
> supported. No protocol is useful if the other endpoint does not
> support it. While QUIC is currently pushed, the multi path version
> of it is not and it does not seem to distribute load well.
> Did that change recently?
> 
> So you either depend on the other end supporting the protocol you
> like or you make a tunnel. That's what you do according to the forum
> posts. So in the end, you are selling a VPN with another marketing
> than your competitors.

You can run the server-side yourself, so from what I understood the
"sale" here is mostly for a (open) protocol stack to implement
asymmetric link aggregation (as opposed to using proprietary,
vendor-specific solutions to do the same thing, eg. MikroTik)

> 
> > I provide services to ISPs and other interested parties to implement
> > the solution to their infrastructure. Contact me here.
> 
> Why should an ISP care about that? In my country, there is an ISP
> selling a bonded solution but this is an expensive ISP and even
> with bonding cheaper ISPs provide better connectivity. It looks
> like this ISP bought some hardware/software solution for that that
> includes their network infrastructure and the device for the end user.

Not all (esp. wireless) ISPs operate on their own physical infrastructure.
Some developing countries still rely primarily on 4G/5G mobile backhaul,
or even copper for the last mile.

And especially in those emerging markets aggregating multile mobile
network uplinks of different operator networks is the only way to gain
reliable connectivity.