Multiple network interfaces on a single NIC in Windows

Question

Here's the scenario:

Lets say we have a wireless network that imposes bandwidth limit on IP addresses(ie every IP address has limited bandwidth). To get around this, we can obtain several IP addresses from the access point, but the problem is that Windows by default uses the first IP address for all outbound connections.

I realized that on Windows platforms if we could introduce virtual interfaces on the wireless NIC (like interface aliasing in LINUX) we would be able to use ROUTE command to route different connections through different (virtual) interfaces (this is the case since the ROUTE command uses interfaces for routing instructions).

So the question is:

Can we have multiple (virtual) interfaces with different IP addresses on a single NIC on Windows?

Thanks

Solution

Windows 7 supports Virtual WiFi:

http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/redmond/projects/virtualwifi/

You can always add multiple static IP addresses with Advanced TCP/IP Settings:

http://www.windowsnetworking.com/articles_tutorials/understanding-advanced-tcp-ip-settings-windows-2003.html

Comments

[Keltari]

Im not a network engineer, but dont think this will work. I would assume bandwidth limitations are actually are based on machine address codes (MAC). Even if you were to effectively assign yourself several IPs, they would all use the same MAC. You could give yourself a virtual MAC or a second ethernet card, however a properly set up network would not allow the connection of an unregistered MAC.

[Alpha Romeo]

If it's MAC based, you can spoof MAC. Also, VMWare has a component called Virtual Ethernet Adapter for Virtual Machines that you may be able to use to acquire multiple IPs and use without any VMs (but YMMV).

[M at]

I came to this problem for almost 4 years, I never had an answer, but as i tested there are lots of configuration limit based on ip ( even having a same mac address)

[Keltari]

This is how you can set up multiple IPs, but I dont think this will work for the OP. See my comment on the original OPs question.

[Steve-o]

@Keltari that's why I listed Virtual WiFi first, I think that would be more productive.