Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Bridging two internet connections

saadat

saadat

macrumors member
Original poster
Nov 30, 2008
86
0
Hello all
I have a macbook white having Leopard installed. I have a DSL Ethernet broadband and a ZTE EVDO Usb modem. Now, i wish to know if I can bridge these two connections together to have a faster internet connection. I do not need to share this connection.
Thanks
regards
 
You cannot do that with the consumer version of OSX (AFAIK) but it could be done with the server version of OS X (not recommended for your system). Also, bridging means allowing one connection to also use the other, not what you are meaning.

TEG
 
thanks for replying....what i actually mean is that i just want to increase my internet speed...also i wish to know if i can combine an airport and an ethernet internet connection??

and why wudnt a server version be good for me... my config is 2.0 gH, 1 gb ram...is it not enough??
 
If you do a little searching on google for 'multiple enet interfaces' you might get some thoughts.

Systems with multiple interfaces (which is what you would be doing) tend to assign interfaces per program, unless they have unusual coding in the program. You might be able to get Safari to work on one and FireFox on the other, but the speeds won't combine - Safari will run at the speed of it's connection and Firefox will run at the other.

Combining the interfaces is tricky for the OS. Using separate interfaces is not that difficult. You won't be able to speed up a huge download by trying to use these two interfaces together.
 
old-wiz, I'm not really clear on what you're saying, but it does not seem correct.

If you bond two gigabit interfaces together (called bonding or teaming) on a local LAN, you have a 2 gigabit connection that any program can use. If you have two separate interfaces on the same subnet, that can confuse the IP stack. If you have two interfaces on two different subnets, it can either confuse the IP stack (by having a bad routing table) or it will route fine (by having a good routing table). Either way, I know of no OS that dedicates a link to an application. That goes against the OSI model, which OS X and Windows adhere to generally.

The problem that comes up with the OP's question, is that bonding two Internet WAN links requires working with your ISP to do so. This is generally expensive, as you either have the ISP provide the router(s) or you do or you buy them (which means you need an AS number), and they have to be capable of running BGP to do this. This is an expensive endeavor, one that is independent of operating systems and applications.
 
thanks both of u...but u've confused me....now tell me if its possible in leopard or i need to get leopard server???
 
belvdr said:
old-wiz, I'm not really clear on what you're saying, but it does not seem correct.

If you bond two gigabit interfaces together (called bonding or teaming) on a local LAN, you have a 2 gigabit connection that any program can use. If you have two separate interfaces on the same subnet, that can confuse the IP stack. If you have two interfaces on two different subnets, it can either confuse the IP stack (by having a bad routing table) or it will route fine (by having a good routing table). Either way, I know of no OS that dedicates a link to an application. That goes against the OSI model, which OS X and Windows adhere to generally.

The problem that comes up with the OP's question, is that bonding two Internet WAN links requires working with your ISP to do so. This is generally expensive, as you either have the ISP provide the router(s) or you do or you buy them (which means you need an AS number), and they have to be capable of running BGP to do this. This is an expensive endeavor, one that is independent of operating systems and applications.
Click to expand...

I didn't explain it too clearly. Links do not get dedicated to an application, you're right. What I was trying to show that when you make a connect it's only going to go to one interface.

Bonding two links is really messy as you point out.

I worked in *nix internals when I was working (more than 3 years ago) and I don't always explain things too clearly when I'm not sure who I'm trying to explain it to. We had systems with multiple interfaces that used different subnets and the IP stack handled it fine. We had a local loop and a WAN loop. We use the term 'loop' just to indicate a subnet. The WAN loop obviously went outside the building to the net.

Anyway, what the OP is trying to do isn't going to work without some serious work and money.
 
saadat said:
thanks both of u...but u've confused me....now tell me if its possible in leopard or i need to get leopard server???
Click to expand...

In English, if I understand what they were saying,
1. To do this you would need Lepoard server.
2. You would need to have 2 static IP addresses, which you probably don't have.

To do this would cost a lot of money, and probably wouldn't be worth it for you.
 
saadat said:
thanks both of u...but u've confused me....now tell me if its possible in leopard or i need to get leopard server???
Click to expand...

Explain clearly what you're trying to do. If you are trying:

1. To share an existing Internet connection (say on you ethernet port) to clients who connect to that machine over wireless, yes.

2. Join 2 DSL lilnks to have a faster Internet connection, yes, but it has nothing to do with your client machines. This would be a several thousand dollar investment.
 
belvdr said:
Explain clearly what you're trying to do. If you are trying:

1. To share an existing Internet connection (say on you ethernet port) to clients who connect to that machine over wireless, yes.

2. Join 2 DSL lilnks to have a faster Internet connection, yes, but it has nothing to do with your client machines. This would be a several thousand dollar investment.
Click to expand...

I m trying to do the second one, i.e., joining two interfaces for a faster connection...in windows xp its very easy, where we bridge the two connections....now how do i make it possible, assume that i have leopard server..
 
saadat said:
I m trying to do the second one, i.e., joining two interfaces for a faster connection...in windows xp its very easy, where we bridge the two connections....now how do i make it possible, assume that i have leopard server..
Click to expand...

Bridging is not equal to bonding/teaming your adapters together. All you are really doing is allowing those two networks to communicate to one another, and could cause all sorts of problems. That's what a bridge does in reality. Even if your machine is plugged directly into two separate Internet links, you'll still not be bonding them together using a home computer.

To bond two Internet links, you need to see my post above. It requires a router with two interfaces and BGP. This is not done and is not capable at an OS level.
 
belvdr said:
Bridging is not equal to bonding/teaming your adapters together. All you are really doing is allowing those two networks to communicate to one another, and could cause all sorts of problems. That's what a bridge does in reality. Even if your machine is plugged directly into two separate Internet links, you'll still not be bonding them together using a home computer.

To bond two Internet links, you need to see my post above. It requires a router with two interfaces and BGP. This is not done and is not capable at an OS level.
Click to expand...

but the apple site says its possible in Leopard Server... Now i m thinking of installing leopard server on my macbook...having 1 gb ram...i just need server with basic features....would it run smoothly then??
regards
 
saadat said:
but the apple site says its possible in Leopard Server... Now i m thinking of installing leopard server on my macbook...having 1 gb ram...i just need server with basic features....would it run smoothly then??
regards
Click to expand...

No it doesn't; you are lacking some terminology. You are not paying attention to what I have said. All you keep coming back to is if it will run smoothly.

I will not repeat myself any more. See my above posts.
 
belvdr said:
No it doesn't; you are lacking some terminology. You are not paying attention to what I have said. All you keep coming back to is if it will run smoothly.

I will not repeat myself any more. See my above posts.
Click to expand...

actually i m new to mac...so i dont know the actual terminoligy....i'll write in simple words what i want... i have two internet connections...i want to join these two connections just to get a better speed...thats it...now i read this thing on leopard server page... http://www.apple.com/server/macosx/technology/networking.html ...
 
You are missing an important part of the quote:

"Ethernet link aggregation is supported by Xserve and Mac Pro systems and by systems with third-party Ethernet cards that conform to the IEEE 802.3ad standard"

The MacBook does not have this hardware; you are not going to be able to do it. Bridging is NOT aggregating. Even with the hardware, you need cooperation with the ISP to do it.
 
saadat said:
actually i m new to mac...so i dont know the actual terminoligy....i'll write in simple words what i want... i have two internet connections...i want to join these two connections just to get a better speed...thats it...now i read this thing on leopard server page... http://www.apple.com/server/macosx/technology/networking.html ...
Click to expand...

It's not a Mac or PC thing. This is operating system independent. Forget about Windows, OS X, Linux, etc. They are not even in scope of what you need to accomplish this.

That link is for LAN, not WAN.

See:

https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=7301821#post7301821

which is my post above on how to do this for Internet links. If you want your head to spin, read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Gateway_Protocol
 
I've seen solutions implementing multiple WAN link load balancing via Linux/netfilter (even some attempting to do it with ipfw2 under BSD). It is possible, but it is an extremely complicated and hairy task of balancing IP traffic across multiple interfaces without screwing up established TCP sessions (which cannot not be split across physical links for a solution like this).
 
thanks fellas....now does this mean that i can't do it??? even with leopard server???
 
Running Full BGP routes on 2 internet connections with OSX Server

Dear Old Wiz:

I have an AS number and have been an ISP for 14 years. I am in the process of changing my Internet Providers, and would love to have an Apple machine with OSX Server running Full BGP routes instead of a large Cisco Router. IS THIS POSSIBLE? I noticed you seem to have your knowledgebase :) together, so, If you would be kind enough to reply, I would very much appreciate your assistance to see if it is possible. I have never setup a full router system before, but I have some network management and Networking/router configuration Experience. I love many unix operating systems, mainly been working with BSDI, Free BSD, OSX. Some linux, but not working machines. We brought down our Firewall gillnet when we had to temp shutdown our network, and moved machines to CoLO. Now I need to bring back up a connection, Looking at Qwest Metro Fiber, which mux's copper to give large bandwith.

So, As I look at this issue, want to use some Old Grey Boxes as Router/ Firewall to provide full routes. Would love to make the RD/Testing Center for a full Mac Box shop, running OS's on Macs to show what can be done.

I look forward to your response.

I can send direct email if you are interested and have time to assist.

Revolution Breeze...
 
NetStores said:
Dear Old Wiz:

I have an AS number and have been an ISP for 14 years. I am in the process of changing my Internet Providers, and would love to have an Apple machine with OSX Server running Full BGP routes instead of a large Cisco Router. IS THIS POSSIBLE? I noticed you seem to have your knowledgebase :) together, so, If you would be kind enough to reply, I would very much appreciate your assistance to see if it is possible. I have never setup a full router system before, but I have some network management and Networking/router configuration Experience. I love many unix operating systems, mainly been working with BSDI, Free BSD, OSX. Some linux, but not working machines. We brought down our Firewall gillnet when we had to temp shutdown our network, and moved machines to CoLO. Now I need to bring back up a connection, Looking at Qwest Metro Fiber, which mux's copper to give large bandwith.

So, As I look at this issue, want to use some Old Grey Boxes as Router/ Firewall to provide full routes. Would love to make the RD/Testing Center for a full Mac Box shop, running OS's on Macs to show what can be done.

I look forward to your response.

I can send direct email if you are interested and have time to assist.

Revolution Breeze...
Click to expand...

I've been retired for almost 5 years now, and I'm not up to date with setting up the current hardware. Sorry, I have to decline.
 
ElectricSheep said:
I've seen solutions implementing multiple WAN link load balancing via Linux/netfilter (even some attempting to do it with ipfw2 under BSD). It is possible, but it is an extremely complicated and hairy task of balancing IP traffic across multiple interfaces without screwing up established TCP sessions (which cannot not be split across physical links for a solution like this).
Click to expand...

Cradlepoint's "enterprise" routers will share Internet connections, and/or provide failover. This is not bonding to achieve a higher speed, though sharing does provide some elbow room. They are specifically designed for cellular broadband devices together with traditional services that plug into an ethernet WAN port. I have used one for a year now to supplement my iffy cable modem service with a Verizon USB modem or a tethered Blackberry Storm (both recognized by the router). Even though the OP is not looking to share his Internet service, this device comes in cheaper and simpler than a server OS or more expensive hardware running BGP.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back