Is it possible to combine 2 slow WAN into faster virtual one reddit / selfhosted ---------------------------------------------------------------------- madjelly1 · 2023-09-28 04:01 Hello, I have site A with 2 or more 20mbit cellular connections. And site B with 500mbit WAN, and fixed IP. Is it possible to connect two or more tunnels from site A to Site B server, and use site B exit point as virtual 40mbit connection for site A. In other words, split packets in site A over two tunnels, receive and reconstruct them on site B, and forward them to internet. And same logic for receiving. Is there free/opensource software for this? How this technique is called? I have no idea how to google this correctly lol. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- roman5588 · 2023-09-28 04:12 Not typically without some flash gateway or sdwan solution. Certainly nothing free I’d use in production. Normally you loadbalance connections over both interfaces instead of hacking packets off in different directions. This is pretty straightforward and time tested. For example firewall one interface or VPN for web/email/smb, the other for RDP and other higher priority traffic types. Then set them as failovers. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- vermyx · 2023-09-28 04:29 Wan aggregation on your firewall. Opnsense/pfsense can do this but it is more complicated than a+b =profit ---------------------------------------------------------------------- gryd3 · 2023-09-28 04:35 'Bonding' is often used to refer to this. You can bond ADSL links for example.. if one link doesn't cut it... however, it requires support from the ISP. You can also 'load-balance' and alternate between A and B so that your total aggregate is A+B... However! Balance algorithms may not always decide which is best to use, A or B, and this does not give you a single fast connection... it simply spread the load out so that collectively, everyone feels like they're on a bigger circuit than they really are. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- CatOfTheDecade · 2023-09-28 04:46 Yes, but ... If you're talking cellular, you're going to introduce significant latency. At that point you'd really want dedicated hardware handling the bonding (as in, don't just plug in two USB cellular modems and bond them on your firewall). I suspect you're going to see a lot of TCP sequencing errors too. TCP can handle that, but the retransmission is going to add more latency. You also have an issue if you're just making multiple connections to the same tower. That won't necessarily get you x 20Mb connections; the tower has a fixed amount of bandwidth on both the RF side and the backhaul side. As the tower approaches that, your throughput is going to drop. Even if you're hitting multiple cell sites, you probably won't be for long. Even back in the earliest digital days, when GSM and CDMA PCS networks were first rolling out in the US, phones had some degree of intelligence when it came to hopping between cells. In some cases that intelligence came from the network but the bottom line is that it's only become more sophisticated today, and you really don't have any way of guaranteeing which tower you're going to hit unless you have some kind of custom architecture with the carrier. Finally, you're probably going to run into network management. That's going to deprioritize or throttle your connection once you exceed a set amount of data. This limit varies by carrier and plan. So ... technically? Yes, this is possible. But I don't think you'll be happy with the end result. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- s717737 · 2023-09-28 04:57 take a look at OpenMTPCPRouter project https://github.com/Ysurac/openmptcprouter ---------------------------------------------------------------------- GremlinNZ · 2023-09-28 07:16 I have done this commercially in the past, multiple sites with equipment, all routed through a datacentre. This was a while ago (decade ish?) but the simple result was, it didn't work well. Packets were split between the connections, but with a decent difference in speed, the fast line would have to keep waiting for the slow one, or re-send packets due to syn-ack. Your best bet is to simply route different traffic through different gateways, if you can. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- liotier · 2023-09-28 08:10 Whatever the bonding or multipath protocol, the latency of the aggregate will be that of the worse link. Bandwidth will be increased though - but much less than the addition. As u/GremlinNZ said, simplest way to take advantage of multiple link is to route different classes of traffic to different gateways - discriminate by port in, port out, IP in, IP out etc. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- zupobaloop · 2023-09-28 11:00 This doesn't match your last bit about being free and open source, but this is exactly the kind of thing Peplink does as a business. They sell load balancing routers and then a subscription von service (speed fusion) that will seemlessly combine all your WAN connections. However, the cheap consumer grade router (Peplink Balance 20) only does 30mb/s with that "Speed fusion" option. Though 150mb/s is possible with plain load balancing. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- eric_glb · 2023-09-28 21:37 Exactly what I was thinking of. The picture on the main website describes the very same scenario as what OP is looking for. https://www.openmptcprouter.com/