• Help diagnosing VOIP problem

    Locked
    4
    0 Votes
    4 Posts
    2k Views
    S
    SIP registration usually uses UDP 5060 and not TCP, though it could be TCP… you should double-check to make sure. You should ask your provider which RTP ports they use and forward those as well. One way audio in SIP calls usually has to do with RTP ports either being full (no more left to assign), or the RTP packets could get lost (improper forwarding), packet loss, etc.
  • 0 Votes
    4 Posts
    3k Views
    E
    For the VoIP shaping. 1- You should know that 1.2 does not do multiple interfaces. 2- If you have activated shaping for the Voip interface and WAN than the changes in 3 would make it better. 3- Change the output of the wizard in 1.2 to have realtime priority only on the qVoIP* queues and not on the others. Increase its realtime parameter to the desired value. Usually number of phones * average of 25Kb per phone should give you a nice result for the realtime parameter or just use a % parameter in there. This should get you up and running perfectly. As for the shaper contribution there is no stated minimum though i think people should get reasonable cause 1$ does not mean much! Though that is a contribution still. Ermal
  • Bandwidth saturated by lowest priority queue?

    Locked
    9
    0 Votes
    9 Posts
    21k Views
    V
    Hi, I have faced your problem too, so i digged myself into the issue a bit. The core problem: "The question is, why doesn't my qLAN_P2P queue behave in similar fashion as my qLAN_Default queue?" I think the reason is: Because a P2P traffic usually consist of many connections, while normal HTTP or FTP only few. This makes huge difference on traffic shaping. Freebsd uses queues, meanwhile it can only work if there is always empty space in each queue. So, when you try to prioritize your P2P traffic by assigning the lowest priority to it, what will happen? PF will drop packets from P2P queue first, as it has the lowest prio. And what will happen after this? One of your many-many P2P connections will be slowed down a bit, but nobody knows which one, and you still have a lot of others, which all tries to use your connection. That is why you feel: traffic shaper does not limit the bandwidth. It tries, but it can not. In other words: freebsd can not shape traffic with overloaded queues if there are a lot of connections belong to it, because it simply can not know which connection uses the most bandwidth within the a queue. It simply drops packages by random from the respective queue - I guess. You can check this by going out to shell, and type: pfctl -vsq You see, the default queue size of freebsd is 50. This is ok for low number of connections, but for P2P it is nothing. Solution: You have to increase the size of your P2P queues manually in order to avoid the queue saturation. See my post at: http://forum.pfsense.org/index.php/topic,9427.0.html It works for me perfectly since weeks. Now i can prioritize P2P traffic without any problem. I have queue size for P2P of 2000! (of course the latency is higher with such big queue, but for P2P this is not a problem at all) Unfortunatelly the current webgui does not support this setting, but with 'vi' you can modify the setting in '/tmp/rules.debug' in seconds. Then you reload the modified ruleset by 'pfctl -A -f /tmp/rules.debug'. I think it would have reason to include queue setting into the Webgui. Hope this helps. Viktor
  • Traffic shaping on service running on Pfsense

    Locked
    2
    0 Votes
    2 Posts
    3k Views
    S
    Well that seems logical, because pf will match the packets based on which interface they came from and which interface they left from. An packet coming from WAN to your FTP server would enter through WAN, but it won't leave. It probably won't be matched to any queue and avoid traffic shaping. Same for SMTP. I'm not too sure about Squid, because the packet does transit WAN->LAN or LAN->WAN, but since it's intercepted by Squid in the middle, it might not be matched by pf either for traffic shaping. Anyone else feel free to prove me wrong, I'm just guessing here from what I know about pf, hfsc, etc.
  • Transparent Bridge and Shaper?

    Locked
    2
    0 Votes
    2 Posts
    2k Views
    D
    Yes, worked. I'm use this.
  • Packet drops relation to queue limit

    Locked
    1
    0 Votes
    1 Posts
    12k Views
    No one has replied
  • Browsing

    Locked
    5
    0 Votes
    5 Posts
    3k Views
    M
    ok what should i click first for http traffic sorry im new of this thing and i love to know more about pfsense.thnks
  • Shaping question, how to keep latency low

    Locked
    6
    0 Votes
    6 Posts
    6k Views
    M
    jerm, Thanks a lot on your input. My problem is mainly with incoming traffic, since I can decide what goes out or doesn't go out on this connection. That is, if my outbound bandwidth is saturated, I could easily fix it. If my inbound bandwidth is all used, I can hardly do anything on my side, since gaming traffic is already coming to me delayed. I can shape it on my side, but whatever I do will never be 100% as efficient as it would be on my ISP side. So as I have it right now I am more than happy. A 12ms on average ping increase while someone is updating TF2 is good enough for me, way better than with no shapping at all, when Steam was usiong all available bandwidth as soon as someone needed to update something (even the update of the Steam client would give everyone several seconds of lag!)
  • [SOLVED] Penalty IP works only 15 minutes?

    Locked
    2
    0 Votes
    2 Posts
    2k Views
    U
    I think that problem is in UPnP… I have UPnP enabled and may be this is the reason why Penalty IP works for 10 to 15 minutes... This is the usual time to activate UPnP port. So UPnP traffic is not shaped at all. Will be this fixed in pfSense 1.3?
  • Traffic control and reporting

    Locked
    1
    0 Votes
    1 Posts
    2k Views
    No one has replied
  • Time Based Traffic Shapping

    Locked
    4
    0 Votes
    4 Posts
    3k Views
    H
    adjusting queues would work. moving already established traffic from one queue to another one won't.
  • VOIP Traffic not in correct queues

    Locked
    3
    0 Votes
    3 Posts
    3k Views
    B
    Yes I have six vlan interfaces WAN, LAN, OP1, OPT2, OPT3, OPT4 (WAN,LAN,VOIP,CAPTIVE PORTAL,WLAN,VENTRILO)
  • Penalty limiting in 1.2 final

    Locked
    2
    0 Votes
    2 Posts
    2k Views
    H
    Did you reset states after running the shaper wizard? How did you specify the lanhosts in the penalty field? Did you set WAN and LAN  as outbound and inbound interface when running the wizard?
  • Horribly slow COPY on SMB share

    Locked
    8
    0 Votes
    8 Posts
    8k Views
    C
    OK, I think I've resolved this problem. I've done the following steps: Tweaked the Windows Registry using numerous HOW-TO's found on the Internet, especially TCP Windows Size, Request Buffer Size and TCP 1323 Options. Rebooted the Windows server. This has resolved the problem, and copying a 300MB file now takes approximately 2 minutes! Thanks for everyone's assistance and time.
  • Shapping traffic between DMZ and WAN, but *not* DMZ and LAN?

    Locked
    5
    0 Votes
    5 Posts
    3k Views
    D
    Im running 1.2 final and I may be trying to do something similar, can someone confirm? I have my Webserver in the DMZ and have a LAN and WAN if.  Currently I am shaping the LAN and WAN with simple shaping to prioritze the VoIP data.  I also want to limit all LAN -> WAN traffic to some KB limit to ensure the DMZ if gets all the bandwidth it needs. Since the DMZ is bridged to the WAN, is this not possible in 1.2 ? Thanks
  • Pptp shapping

    Locked
    1
    0 Votes
    1 Posts
    2k Views
    No one has replied
  • PFsense single shaper

    Locked
    12
    0 Votes
    12 Posts
    5k Views
    H
    If you create lots of queues and assign each host to a queue yes.
  • Cannot access Status -> Queues anymore

    Locked
    7
    0 Votes
    7 Posts
    3k Views
    A
    In my case, it's finally works by doing the following. Setup Traffic Shaper by the wizard, then goto Firewall: Shaper: Queues to setup the bandwidth for each queue. For example, given smaller maximum bandwidth to P2P traffic, then the Status: Traffic shaper: Queues can be load without problem. Thanks hoba! I know I have been asked many dump questions but your help is most appreciated! Aldo
  • Priority on WWW traffic

    Locked
    5
    0 Votes
    5 Posts
    3k Views
    M
    @brizio: Ok, thanks but is it possible define a maximum bandwith that an user can utilize ? I mean in case I have a 2MB of bandwith on my Wan link I would like that an user can utilize a miximum of 1MB, is it possible ? Thanks This may be done by squid more simple: define a one connection speed less than maximum available for this acl. In this case is possible to make difference between http traffic types
  • SIP Traffic Shaping question

    Locked
    2
    0 Votes
    2 Posts
    3k Views
    H
    Multiinterface shaing is not really working in 1.2 (search the forum) but it will be much much better in 1.3 (see the trafficshpaer thread in the bounty section). For now you could do something like this: wan upstream is upstream on wan interface lan downstream is downstream of ALL your wans This won't work perfect of course but it's the best that you can do in 1.2 currently, at least when working with only one pfSense. Other option would be to have an additional system inline on wan only doing shaping from wan to lan as workaround until 1.3 is available. ISP1-------wan/pfsense/lan-------wan          lan----- ISP2-----------------------------wan2 pfSense optx----- ISP2-----------------------------wan3        opty---                                 ...          ...
Copyright 2025 Rubicon Communications LLC (Netgate). All rights reserved.