My ISP plan is officially limited to 50 Mbps, but when I connect a newer router using its factory MAC address, the connection appears to receive a different, uncapped profile. Web traffic on ports 80 and 443 seems blocked, while a Cloudflare WARP tunnel over WireGuard works from my computer and sometimes reaches several hundred Mbps.
I'm experimenting with a headless Ubuntu laptop as a gateway. The goal is for every device in the house—including phones and other devices that are inconvenient to configure manually—to use the tunnel automatically. The newer router does not support WARP itself, so I'm considering having the Ubuntu system provide DHCP, advertise itself as the default gateway, and route client traffic through the tunnel. What would a sensible LAN layout and configuration look like? I also understand this may simply be an ISP provisioning mistake that could disappear or violate the service agreement.
3 Answers
The topology needs to be clear first. A typical setup is ISP connection into the upstream router or modem, one Ethernet interface on the Ubuntu box facing that network, and a second interface connected to a separate LAN or access point. Clients should receive DHCP leases from Ubuntu, not from the upstream router, and their default route should point to Ubuntu. Avoid having two independent DHCP servers on the same LAN.
Be careful treating this as a permanent speed upgrade. It sounds like an accidental provisioning profile rather than a supported feature. The ISP could correct it, restrict the account, or consider tunneling around its service controls a policy violation. I’d test the Linux routing setup as a learning project, but plan around the contracted 50 Mbps and consider asking the ISP for a legitimate faster tier.
Use the Linux machine as the actual router for the client network. It should run DHCP, hand out its own LAN address as the default gateway, enable IP forwarding and NAT, and use the WARP/WireGuard interface as the preferred outbound route. The access point or router should operate only as a bridge or access point, with its DHCP server disabled. Then phones and other clients can obtain the gateway automatically without manual settings.
That’s the arrangement I was considering: the newer router would provide Wi‑Fi, while the Ubuntu laptop would handle DHCP, routing, and the tunnel.
If the router cannot bridge properly, using a separate access point or placing the gateway behind it may create double NAT. It can still work, but a clean two-interface setup is easier to troubleshoot.