Use different connections (wifi + ethernet) to increase speed on lan

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP





.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;








2















I have a laptop with a 100mb/s ethernet and a 75mb/s wireless connection to my internet router. This is the maximum speed each network adapter can get in my laptop, but my external link is higher.



I'm thinking if it's possible to use both connections to my router as one, joining their capacity up to 175mb/s in theory. My router is a Linux box, like most of the wifi routers, and I have ssh access to it, thus allowing it possibilities for some setup there as also.



Here's a graph of the network setup:



 +----------+ETH (100Mbs)<------>-----------+Fiber (300Mbs)<-------> External
| MY | | ROUTER |
| LAPTOP | | |
+----------+WIFI (75Mbs)<------>-----------+


I know that there are other ways like buying an external gigabit ethernet adapter. But this is not a huge problem. I was just wondering if this is possible so setup (with no additional cost), so I could have better use of what I have, and I found out it's an interesting question.










share|improve this question






























    2















    I have a laptop with a 100mb/s ethernet and a 75mb/s wireless connection to my internet router. This is the maximum speed each network adapter can get in my laptop, but my external link is higher.



    I'm thinking if it's possible to use both connections to my router as one, joining their capacity up to 175mb/s in theory. My router is a Linux box, like most of the wifi routers, and I have ssh access to it, thus allowing it possibilities for some setup there as also.



    Here's a graph of the network setup:



     +----------+ETH (100Mbs)<------>-----------+Fiber (300Mbs)<-------> External
    | MY | | ROUTER |
    | LAPTOP | | |
    +----------+WIFI (75Mbs)<------>-----------+


    I know that there are other ways like buying an external gigabit ethernet adapter. But this is not a huge problem. I was just wondering if this is possible so setup (with no additional cost), so I could have better use of what I have, and I found out it's an interesting question.










    share|improve this question


























      2












      2








      2








      I have a laptop with a 100mb/s ethernet and a 75mb/s wireless connection to my internet router. This is the maximum speed each network adapter can get in my laptop, but my external link is higher.



      I'm thinking if it's possible to use both connections to my router as one, joining their capacity up to 175mb/s in theory. My router is a Linux box, like most of the wifi routers, and I have ssh access to it, thus allowing it possibilities for some setup there as also.



      Here's a graph of the network setup:



       +----------+ETH (100Mbs)<------>-----------+Fiber (300Mbs)<-------> External
      | MY | | ROUTER |
      | LAPTOP | | |
      +----------+WIFI (75Mbs)<------>-----------+


      I know that there are other ways like buying an external gigabit ethernet adapter. But this is not a huge problem. I was just wondering if this is possible so setup (with no additional cost), so I could have better use of what I have, and I found out it's an interesting question.










      share|improve this question
















      I have a laptop with a 100mb/s ethernet and a 75mb/s wireless connection to my internet router. This is the maximum speed each network adapter can get in my laptop, but my external link is higher.



      I'm thinking if it's possible to use both connections to my router as one, joining their capacity up to 175mb/s in theory. My router is a Linux box, like most of the wifi routers, and I have ssh access to it, thus allowing it possibilities for some setup there as also.



      Here's a graph of the network setup:



       +----------+ETH (100Mbs)<------>-----------+Fiber (300Mbs)<-------> External
      | MY | | ROUTER |
      | LAPTOP | | |
      +----------+WIFI (75Mbs)<------>-----------+


      I know that there are other ways like buying an external gigabit ethernet adapter. But this is not a huge problem. I was just wondering if this is possible so setup (with no additional cost), so I could have better use of what I have, and I found out it's an interesting question.







      networking






      share|improve this question















      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited Mar 13 at 8:51









      Rui F Ribeiro

      42k1483142




      42k1483142










      asked Mar 13 at 5:50









      Allan DeamonAllan Deamon

      1283




      1283




















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          2














          Simply: No, you cannot achieve that.



          You may consider a solution that is easier: you have 2 ethernet interfaces and want to use them both. In Linux, it is called "bond" which uses LACP for bonding interfaces into one logical. However this requires support on the side of the switch as well (it needs to be configured, not sure if home switches are capable of such a thing). Even then one single connection will not be able to pass through more than a single link capacity (it is based on hashes of some header fields - which in communication between 2 nodes and the same service will be the same).



          Another problem is routing because you have two separate L3 ports, your routing computation needs to be deterministic - therefore you can choose only one interface at a time for your usage.



          What you could achieve is: consider you are running a few virtual machines, you will grant them access to ethernet (bridge the interface) and you will continue to use the wifi only. This way your throughput could rise over the limit of ethernet, but is a very specific scenario.






          share|improve this answer

























          • Yeah. I expected something like that: there is a technology for it, but it would be unimplementable in this context. It's nice to learn about LACP though.

            – Allan Deamon
            Mar 13 at 8:07











          Your Answer








          StackExchange.ready(function()
          var channelOptions =
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "106"
          ;
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
          createEditor();
          );

          else
          createEditor();

          );

          function createEditor()
          StackExchange.prepareEditor(
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: false,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: null,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader:
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          ,
          onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          );



          );













          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f506016%2fuse-different-connections-wifi-ethernet-to-increase-speed-on-lan%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes








          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          2














          Simply: No, you cannot achieve that.



          You may consider a solution that is easier: you have 2 ethernet interfaces and want to use them both. In Linux, it is called "bond" which uses LACP for bonding interfaces into one logical. However this requires support on the side of the switch as well (it needs to be configured, not sure if home switches are capable of such a thing). Even then one single connection will not be able to pass through more than a single link capacity (it is based on hashes of some header fields - which in communication between 2 nodes and the same service will be the same).



          Another problem is routing because you have two separate L3 ports, your routing computation needs to be deterministic - therefore you can choose only one interface at a time for your usage.



          What you could achieve is: consider you are running a few virtual machines, you will grant them access to ethernet (bridge the interface) and you will continue to use the wifi only. This way your throughput could rise over the limit of ethernet, but is a very specific scenario.






          share|improve this answer

























          • Yeah. I expected something like that: there is a technology for it, but it would be unimplementable in this context. It's nice to learn about LACP though.

            – Allan Deamon
            Mar 13 at 8:07















          2














          Simply: No, you cannot achieve that.



          You may consider a solution that is easier: you have 2 ethernet interfaces and want to use them both. In Linux, it is called "bond" which uses LACP for bonding interfaces into one logical. However this requires support on the side of the switch as well (it needs to be configured, not sure if home switches are capable of such a thing). Even then one single connection will not be able to pass through more than a single link capacity (it is based on hashes of some header fields - which in communication between 2 nodes and the same service will be the same).



          Another problem is routing because you have two separate L3 ports, your routing computation needs to be deterministic - therefore you can choose only one interface at a time for your usage.



          What you could achieve is: consider you are running a few virtual machines, you will grant them access to ethernet (bridge the interface) and you will continue to use the wifi only. This way your throughput could rise over the limit of ethernet, but is a very specific scenario.






          share|improve this answer

























          • Yeah. I expected something like that: there is a technology for it, but it would be unimplementable in this context. It's nice to learn about LACP though.

            – Allan Deamon
            Mar 13 at 8:07













          2












          2








          2







          Simply: No, you cannot achieve that.



          You may consider a solution that is easier: you have 2 ethernet interfaces and want to use them both. In Linux, it is called "bond" which uses LACP for bonding interfaces into one logical. However this requires support on the side of the switch as well (it needs to be configured, not sure if home switches are capable of such a thing). Even then one single connection will not be able to pass through more than a single link capacity (it is based on hashes of some header fields - which in communication between 2 nodes and the same service will be the same).



          Another problem is routing because you have two separate L3 ports, your routing computation needs to be deterministic - therefore you can choose only one interface at a time for your usage.



          What you could achieve is: consider you are running a few virtual machines, you will grant them access to ethernet (bridge the interface) and you will continue to use the wifi only. This way your throughput could rise over the limit of ethernet, but is a very specific scenario.






          share|improve this answer















          Simply: No, you cannot achieve that.



          You may consider a solution that is easier: you have 2 ethernet interfaces and want to use them both. In Linux, it is called "bond" which uses LACP for bonding interfaces into one logical. However this requires support on the side of the switch as well (it needs to be configured, not sure if home switches are capable of such a thing). Even then one single connection will not be able to pass through more than a single link capacity (it is based on hashes of some header fields - which in communication between 2 nodes and the same service will be the same).



          Another problem is routing because you have two separate L3 ports, your routing computation needs to be deterministic - therefore you can choose only one interface at a time for your usage.



          What you could achieve is: consider you are running a few virtual machines, you will grant them access to ethernet (bridge the interface) and you will continue to use the wifi only. This way your throughput could rise over the limit of ethernet, but is a very specific scenario.







          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited Mar 13 at 11:52

























          answered Mar 13 at 7:08









          ILikeMatDotHILikeMatDotH

          915




          915












          • Yeah. I expected something like that: there is a technology for it, but it would be unimplementable in this context. It's nice to learn about LACP though.

            – Allan Deamon
            Mar 13 at 8:07

















          • Yeah. I expected something like that: there is a technology for it, but it would be unimplementable in this context. It's nice to learn about LACP though.

            – Allan Deamon
            Mar 13 at 8:07
















          Yeah. I expected something like that: there is a technology for it, but it would be unimplementable in this context. It's nice to learn about LACP though.

          – Allan Deamon
          Mar 13 at 8:07





          Yeah. I expected something like that: there is a technology for it, but it would be unimplementable in this context. It's nice to learn about LACP though.

          – Allan Deamon
          Mar 13 at 8:07

















          draft saved

          draft discarded
















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to Unix & Linux Stack Exchange!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid


          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f506016%2fuse-different-connections-wifi-ethernet-to-increase-speed-on-lan%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown






          Popular posts from this blog

          How to check contact read email or not when send email to Individual?

          Bahrain

          Postfix configuration issue with fips on centos 7; mailgun relay