Hello All,
i know that RouterOS can load balance between different interfaces

What i want to know if there is plan to implement true interface bonding
similar to LTE carrier aggregation

imagine having 2 home cable modem service that gives you 40mbit DL speed each
can be possible to implement the CA function so you can have an overall total throughput of the sum of the input data pipes
in this case 40Mbit + 40Mbist for a total of 80Mbit

And i am asking this because i found a company that have a network appliance that actually do that
unless they are using custom made CISC chips or proprietary patented data technology
there is a big chance that it can be implemented in RouterOS

according to the manufacturer of the throughput summing device they define data bonding as:

Broadband Bonding is the technology that aggregates two or more Internet WAN connections into a faster and more reliable connection.
This technology enables efficient, low-latency combining of broadband lines that can stripe packets from the same flow over different WAN links from different ISPs.
The bonding technology works by intelligently measuring network performance and accordingly making packet-level decision for resource allocation.
This means you will get the aggregate speed of all of your lines with minimal overhead and reduced latency.

Best,
Rolo.

If they use PPPoE, chances are that they use MLPPP to aggregate the links, which Mikrotik does support as a client - you simply specify a list of two Ethernet interfaces as the interface parameter of /interface pppoe-client and specify some mrru value like 1500. So if you can get the PPPoE credentials and set the modems to bridge mode, this is the first thing to try - the " intelligently measuring network performance and accordingly making packet-level decision" may be just a marketing BS.

ic
the bonding device is called the truffle from mushroom networks
i do not know they achieve what they claim.

@sindy, how can you specify mrru if you don't know the mrru being used from the other side ? or even if it supports it ?

the bonding device is called the truffle from mushroom networks
i do not know they achieve what they claim.

Sorry, I haven't read your OP carefully enough, I've thought it was an ISP offering uplink bonding. The solution you refer to allows to create site-to-site tunnels independently of ISP, so you basically ask Mikrotik to implement the same idea.

If site to site VPN is what you are looking for, why load distribution is not sufficient? Bonding in its strict meaning also doesn't use multiple links for a single IP connection.

@sindy, how can you specify mrru if you don't know the mrru being used from the other side ? or even if it supports it ?

MRRU is negotiated. If you configure it and the other side doesn't support it, the connection will simply fall back to plain PPP. Have you ever wondered why MRU is specified for PPP* interfaces?

That's what i mean, it is pointless if not supported by both sides....

Have you ever wondered why MRU is specified for PPP* interfaces?

You mean MRRU?
why ?

Have you ever wondered why MRU is specified for PPP* interfaces?

You mean MRRU?
why ?

No, I mean max-mru to be precise. You can set MTU on Ethernet interface, but not MRU, MRU is specific for PPP* ones.

And the reason why I ask is to make you think about the PPP negotiation as a whole.

@sindy in general i know that the MRU during the negotiation process is calculated depending on the ppp max payload received compared to the MTU and depending on the sizes the max mru will be calculated...

I am interested to any extra info or reference you have...

I am interested to any extra info or reference you have...

The reference is the RFC, but you can see a lot when you sniff the exchange and look into it using Wireshark. If you configure MRRU on the server side but not on the client one, or vice versa, you'll see how the negotiation deals with this.

I can see the configuration reject on wireshark when there is a mismatch on the MRRU on any side under LCP protocol...
Any other interesting part i should look into ?

A complete configuration reject? Or only MLPPP is rejected and the rest goes up?

No, it rejects the part where the MRRU of e.g.1600 Byte is requested, then it falls back to 1480 ...

So the whole truffle thing is a scam, no real carrier aggregation ala LTE cellular radio style

"The Company" for "bonding" must use another public IP address on a datacenter that have sufficent band to aggregate two tunnels coming from each of your ISP...

Work on this way and any mikrotik device (obviously ignoring power) with RouterOS can do that without any patented technology......