Need to create match rule on floating tab and not on lan tab. This thread solved my problems http://forum.pfsense.org/index.php?topic=61315.0

Please explain in more detail. Is the pfsense the LAN router and gateway for the other two computers? If LAN-LAN is allowed through your switches (no source port filter, no vlan) then I cannot see how a third router or server on LAN should be able to influence on that.

I found that if I created a limiter with more than 100 in Queue Size than the limiter setup would freeze. That meening I could add or edit limiters, but they where not changed on the limiter info page and not taken into acocunt in the traffic shaper. Did you create a limiter with more than 100 in queu size? Else you have have found a new porblem. Good luck

I have a setup with limiters both in and out. I think I once tried to remove one of them and traffic stopped. That sounds like your situation. If I am correct then just create a 120Mbit limier and add it as the other limiter, that you expected not to use.

just to let you know that I found how to set this up (add a firewall rule with in/out parameter). thanks Adrien

4 days later and nobody is willing to help… Oh well, I thought I would get smart and picked up a copy of the pfsense 2 Cookbook.  A word to the wise: this book is a waste of time and money.  All it basically does is walk you through wizards without any added explanation or anything.  Their section on traffic shaping basically walked you through the QoS wizard, with all default values.  By the end of it, you don't know any more than if you just launched the wizard yourself and clicked Next 5-6 times.  The cover text says "A practical, example-driven guide to configure even the most advanced features of pfSense 2".  Hardly. At any rate, I'm giving up on traffic shaping.  OpenVPN is working and our VoIP phones seem to be doing better going through pfsense than our old MS ISA Server, so good enough for me to stop banging my head against this wall. Good luck to anyone else trying to figure this out.  You're going to need it.

Firewall - Traffic Shaper - Limiter That's all a limiter does; it limits the incoming or outgoing traffic to a specified rate.

@chercheur: @Hollander: Thank you once again for your most excellent, and too kind, help, Georgeman: I am in your debt  :P I tried it again, and you will guess it: it doesn't work  :-[ [/quote] Hello, Did you manage to get this finally working ? I'm interested because I'm only using basic rules for my VoIP … that are working. Tx ! What I want not yet, no. But I have reasons to believe shortly it will work. But the default traffic shaping is working (again, I wanted something a little bit different). So you might considering trying the default; simply go through the wizard and raise the priority for VOIP, and then see what happens. Perhaps this works for you too  :D

Same with me. Even the RRD graph shows bandwidths of 600Mbps. I only have 100Mbps. [image: RRD-queue.PNG] [image: RRD-queue.PNG_thumb]

@GomezAddams: Is it as simple as creating a floating rule at the end of the rules that matches every tcp packet and sends it to the qACK/qDefault queues? Yes, on interface WAN, direction OUT (considering that you want all your TCP traffic on the qDefault queue and no further classification)

Are you using the traffic shaper?

You said you have only 1 LAN, but you mention you have multiple subnets. What do you mean? Are you using VLANs?

It's OK, the limiter will be applied to whatever gets catched by the rule, and incoming NAT traffic won't.

Thanks fixed my problem.

@GomezAddams: @georgeman: Sounds good. Anyway on the second rule you said "proto UDP", so I wouldn't select an acknowledge queue (unless you know what you are doing) What does selecting an ack queue do for UDP traffic (since UDP doesn't have acks)? Not really sure. What I can tell you is that some traffic might be catched, depending on the packet flags I guess. To make sure everything works the way I want, I prefer to create two rules: one with acknowledge queue for TCP, and one without for UDP

No, there is not currently any way to do that.

That is a known issue that was fixed in 2.1.