• "Some" traffic not being limited by floating rule for fq_codel

    1
    0 Votes
    1 Posts
    354 Views
    No one has replied
  • Limiter Inside Limiter

    4
    0 Votes
    4 Posts
    695 Views
    C
    Some further explanation, for what it's worth. We have an OpenBSD 5.5 firewall in production that I would like to replace with pfSense. It connects a number of wireless clients to the internet. The existing firewall has been configured to shape traffic for each of the existing customers, however we now do the shaping on the customer premise, so we no longer need or wish to have any shaping rule on the firewall for individual customers. The exception to this is customer A. Customer A has a wired connection to a backhaul radio, so we have no ability to shape their traffic on customer premise, and need to continue to do it in the firewall. Additionally, we need to shape all customer traffic to 290 mbps collectively, and VoIP traffic (also from the customers) to 10 mbps. It's easy enough to create three limiters of 290, 100 and 10 mbit and apply these to 1:non-voip, 2:customer A, and 3:voip traffic respectively, but this doesn't prevent the scenario where customer A is using 100 mbps and the other customers use up to 290 mbps concurrently, for a total of 390 mbps of non-voip traffic. I need to be able to limit customer A to 100 mbps and all customers to 290 mbps in total at the same time. Here is the existing code from the pf.conf file in production that I'm trying to port from OpenBSD. queue rootq on { em0, em1 } bandwidth 300M max 300M queue VoIP parent rootq bandwidth 10M max 10M queue wispq parent rootq bandwidth 290M max 290M queue deflt parent wispq bandwidth 100M max 100M default queue customer_A parent wispq bandwidth 100M min 50M max 100M queue customer_B parent wispq bandwidth 30M min 20M max 35M burst 40M for 500ms queue customer_C parent wispq bandwidth 30M min 20M max 35M burst 40M for 500ms As previously mentioned, I'm not trying to implement individual limits for customers B through Z in pfSense; it's the first 5 lines here that really matter. I included a couple more lines to illustrate the fact that all customers still need to fall under the 290 mbit parent queue or limiter. Any recommendations on good/better/best ways to do this in pfSense are appreciated.
  • 0 Votes
    5 Posts
    2k Views
    K
    Actually what happens is that I have packed drops/high latency when transfers over VPN are getting very slow, not fast. Then VPN server can easily reach half of the speed of my download DSL link (i.e 300Mbit/2=150Mbit) and then everything is OK. There are no issues when VPN is not used at all either. Problem is when the remote end behind VPN (=torrent sources) isn't that fast and download speed drops to say 10Mbit. Then torrent transfers are causing high latency/high packet drop on my link. This is very similar case to this one (unresolved issue): https://forum.netgate.com/topic/125639/lots-of-packet-loss-and-high-ping-when-torrenting-through-pia-vpn But it's not PIA VPN that I'm using (it's NordVPN). What is surprising to me that, as said before, I had no such issues when Asus RT-AC68U was my router.
  • Bufferbloat - Load balancing VPN gateway group

    21
    0 Votes
    21 Posts
    3k Views
    D
    @TheNarc definitely not what I'm seeing in my setup. Probably something related to your VPN connection. My latency isn't affected at all. Did you try TCP Tunnel? I'm having latency issues and changes in speed as well when combining torrent with UDP tunnel. I wouldn't disable gateway monitoring, ping should just work and is a usefull quality indicator.
  • firewall rules

    1
    0 Votes
    1 Posts
    248 Views
    No one has replied
  • fq_codel for a Dual WAN

    20
    0 Votes
    20 Posts
    2k Views
    H
    I have a similar problem. I have 1 500/100 Mbit/s Fiber thru vlan connection and a floating rule for limiters with interface wan and wan gateway, match, out.. I'm using this wan gateway in every out connection rule except one where I use a vpn gateway. As soon as I connect the VPN, my WAN only does 50 ish mbit/s upload. If I disable the floating rule, it returns to normal. If I disable the VPN, with floating ruleon, it returns to normal. 2.4.4-RELEASE-p3 (amd64) built on Wed May 15 18:53:44 EDT 2019 FreeBSD 11.2-RELEASE-p10 Intel(R) Atom(TM) CPU C2558 @ 2.40GHz 4 CPUs: 1 package(s) x 4 core(s) EDIT: Forgot to say that I solved my problem adding the queues in the rules and not using the floating rule.
  • What is wrong with my limiters

    6
    0 Votes
    6 Posts
    968 Views
    B
    That looks fine, what hardware are you running Pfsense on? Are you sure that Pfsense is the culprit and not some hardware elsewhere or user error?
  • 0 Votes
    2 Posts
    357 Views
    B
    @mickeyil use limiter with PRIO as scheduler and setting weight in the queues should give you prioritization, not sure how much throughput the SG-1100 is capable off, but i would imagine that a couple of hundred Mbit wouldn't be a problem for it.
  • Floating rule to modem won't match queue

    5
    0 Votes
    5 Posts
    795 Views
    F
    Looks like this floating rule worked after all - setting Match as 1st rule. Not sure why it wasn't working the 1st time, I didn't find any other contradicting rules. Maybe something didn't reload correctly...
  • VSAT latency emulation

    2
    0 Votes
    2 Posts
    585 Views
    B
    @pieterdevries I am seeing the same thing with scheduler set to FIFO and increasing queue length to 200000 doesn't make a difference. Testing WFQ, QFQ, Round Robin and PRIO as scheduler does work with default queue length of 1000. I am not sure if something is wrong in Pfsense but you could go with PRIO as scheduler for now.
  • Help needed - no WAN / LAN on the list of interfaces

    8
    0 Votes
    8 Posts
    1k Views
    A
    @bobbenheim, thanks, understood :-(
  • Setup VOIP QoS with round robin dns

    1
    0 Votes
    1 Posts
    239 Views
    No one has replied
  • Traffic Shaper not allowing pinterest on cell phones to work

    7
    0 Votes
    7 Posts
    664 Views
    P
    Really last post, issue was the ISP modem, pfSense was not "dialing" the connection so i had a double NAT. After letting pfSense connect to the ISP through the modem, all is good, been working great since my last post. For anyone coming across this that is Bell Aliant, the option is PPoE pass-through.
  • CoDel/FQ_CODEL FW Rule

    3
    0 Votes
    3 Posts
    680 Views
    E
    I found some interesting notes by the Dummynet AQM developer including a recommended configuration for FQ_CODEL here. Still old though and an update on what works best would be nice. https://forum.netgate.com/topic/112527/playing-with-fq_codel-in-2-4/775
  • HFSC percentages are not relative?

    2
    0 Votes
    2 Posts
    453 Views
    F
    After playing around some more, looks like "Bandwidth" field uses parent-relative %, but " B/W share of a backlogged queue" (m2) uses absolute %. This makes a bit more sense now why both fields are provided -- but the UI is still atrocious. Correction: "Bandwidth" field allows me to add sum of %s which exceed the parent's %. I'm not certain they'll be applied as relative
  • Traffic shaper reduces bandwith

    14
    0 Votes
    14 Posts
    2k Views
    B
    @hebein fq-codel is more of an automatic solution, in the way that it does'nt starve any connections of bandwidth and tries to keep latency low at all time. You give priority by creating more child queues under the limiter and set the weight parameter and thereafter make a rule to catch the traffic that needs priority. But as with all other type of QoS it needs the bandwidth to be available which could be a problem on LTE and although it might take a few more minutes to implement there is far less adjustments needed to get a good result contrary to the traffic shaper guide. The difference fq-codel isn't just seen on low end connections, on the two speedtests below you can see the difference it makes on a 240 Mbit symmetric fiber connection. The black line is average of the four streams, and total bandwidth is four times the average. [image: 1584881219804-test32_20480_flows_800_uplimit_800limit_20480_flows_download.png] [image: 1584881305873-all.png]
  • Guarante bandwith for 2 LAN Each

    1
    0 Votes
    1 Posts
    338 Views
    No one has replied
  • Can't delete limiters

    3
    3
    0 Votes
    3 Posts
    613 Views
    B
    Thanks for the reply. I rebooted the system & now the limiter info is cleared out, but it still won't let me delete them. I've gone through every rule and can't find any that have a limiter set. Why can't the error message just tell me which rule it thinks has a limiter set? [image: 1584821229167-681101cb-448f-4b86-a944-86e88fe1f41d-image.png]
  • PRIQ 1 user and have drops?

    8
    2
    0 Votes
    8 Posts
    1k Views
    Raffi_R
    @Harvy66 Thanks for the education and info, I really appreciate it. I will keep this in mind and refer back to this thread if I do have any issues. So far I haven't had any complaints from VOIP users.
  • Traffic Shaping HaProxy on WAN

    3
    0 Votes
    3 Posts
    700 Views
    SoloamS
    I also tried to make this work with the tag and tagged fields, the original rule that I have working: Action: match Interface: WAN Direction: in Address Family: IPv4 Protocol: TCP Source: any Destination: Wan Address Destination Port Range: 443 this is working ok tagging the traffic going to the HaProxy, not my finnal intente (I only what to filter the traffic going to the emby server) and now I tried to add: Tag: fromwan Queue none/none Then I used the rule that I stated above: Action: Match Interface: LAN Direction: Out Address Family: IPv4 Protocol: TCP/UDP Source: any Destination: EmbyServer queues qACK/qStream Tagged: fromwan Nothing, the traffic keeps not being assign to any queue. Just out of curiosity I tried to block the traffic from the wan to the emby server. I used the rule above Action: Block Interface: LAN Direction: Out Address Family: IPv4 Protocol: TCP/UDP Source: any Destination: EmbyServer queues qACK/qStream This rule was working blocking the traffinc, but now I added Tagged fromwan. The result was no blocking at all. Floating rules are so hard to predict and test, but I need them to shape my traffic.
Copyright 2025 Rubicon Communications LLC (Netgate). All rights reserved.