• How to give priority to specific IP address?

    2
    0 Votes
    2 Posts
    494 Views
    S
    @enesas How are you doing it? It matters whether you have a web server or something like Teams. The web server is an incoming connection; Teams is outgoing. For the latter see if this helps: https://forum.netgate.com/post/1084271
  • Traffic by IP addresses

    1
    0 Votes
    1 Posts
    377 Views
    No one has replied
  • How to set up Limiter with slow LAN?

    4
    0 Votes
    4 Posts
    658 Views
    noplanN
    @snitem Limit every vlan (each for 1 appartement) To 60 down and 9 up Set the bloat limiter On your wan with floating rule to the exact up / down you get for your wan connection A fair method for all users They have a 60/9 connection protected by a pfS And you can also tweak the limiters with a time based scheduler But be aware limiters on 2.6 CE Are a bit well as far as I know not working BR NP
  • Prioritizing traffic when using LACP LAN?

    3
    0 Votes
    3 Posts
    545 Views
    M
    @michmoor Normally that faster connection is the primary WAN (its failover, so it only uses the cable until it goes down) but it's still crap because the upload is so low. 50Mbps doesn't go very far when you have multiple machines fighting for it. And then when my cable ISP (annoyingly often) goes out and it fails over to running off Starlink, and in some cases (like my work laptop) I can't control it to separate the backup traffic from "needs to work all the time" traffic because I'm not an admin and they set it up to run everything over VPN that pfsense can't see the content of, so I need to find some alternative way to prioritize per-host.
  • Limiter not work

    19
    1 Votes
    19 Posts
    2k Views
    S
    @abel406 said in Limiter not work: guess that's one of the handycaps of using it for home or lab That's not a thing. I suggest starting a new thread about what isn't working, if it's not limiter related?
  • Wizard causes bug on VOiP/SIP

    5
    0 Votes
    5 Posts
    1k Views
    N
    @steveits said in Wizard causes bug on VOiP/SIP: There is this bug which is marked as fixed in 22.05 and the upcoming 2.7 I have read it. That seems exactly like this bug. Strangely, I had the VOIP prior to 2.6.0 so this bug was not in 2.5.x and was reintroduced in 2.6.0
  • Limiter issue

    3
    0 Votes
    3 Posts
    655 Views
    M
    Limiter: WAN Down [image: 1671902673259-cfa1be8b-07b8-42e5-bca8-75536c23c63e-image.png] [image: 1671902721795-71d93f82-ec99-4638-b410-1e1a3a3f2ea8-image.png] WAN Down Queue [image: 1671902756540-8207ed47-31c6-4d06-b248-139cf2a2aee8-image.png] WAN Up [image: 1671902779160-6abd8191-66bf-40fa-8140-b7c9f5801489-image.png] [image: 1671902792982-7b94ffcd-b857-48cb-88d8-719a524ef471-image.png] WAN Up Queue [image: 1671902811946-552ee1ae-3ee0-4429-bdff-65130be02653-image.png] Floating Rule: [image: 1671902871373-c1e705c4-ae8c-4a8b-9ac9-1cd89f303655-image.png] [image: 1671902922607-3a563a94-1400-4c29-98de-7779e30632b7-image.png] [image: 1671902953198-f19765d6-71bc-41ec-b5fc-d64b21a0d300-image.png]
  • Limiters & Gateway Groups

    1
    1 Votes
    1 Posts
    395 Views
    No one has replied
  • To give speed quota to many IPs separately.

    3
    0 Votes
    3 Posts
    604 Views
    E
    @steveits I think I got it. I will try. Thank you very much.
  • Excluding a single device from floating rule with CoDel limiters

    1
    0 Votes
    1 Posts
    268 Views
    No one has replied
  • WAN interfaces not displayed when trying to add traffic shaping queue

    1
    0 Votes
    1 Posts
    220 Views
    No one has replied
  • Traffic shaping on IPv6

    1
    1 Votes
    1 Posts
    488 Views
    No one has replied
  • Kernel Panic enabling CodeLQ in multiple ifaces

    1
    0 Votes
    1 Posts
    356 Views
    No one has replied
  • Prioritizing bandwidth to single destinatio IP/Host

    2
    0 Votes
    2 Posts
    300 Views
    S
    @svaldes Yes. The easiest way is probably to run the wizard and put that server IP in as a VoIP server. Note you can always rerun the wizard, or create your own floating rules, rename rules/queues created, etc.
  • Basic Firewall Setup Rules

    1
    0 Votes
    1 Posts
    301 Views
    No one has replied
  • Traffic shaping just traffic traversing WAN

    3
    0 Votes
    3 Posts
    1k Views
    F
    @racing_shadows Thanks for sharing. I did not find anywhere to set bandwidth for a que, just the interface. Also, I use PRIQ.
  • Limiter for bufferbloat still has latency / jitter

    limiters bufferbloat
    4
    0 Votes
    4 Posts
    2k Views
    H
    Confused about this one thing, with a 290 main queue and a 225 queue for everything else, why do I still get latency? Even if the 225 is saturated, there should be enough bandwidth where the main queue isn’t jammed no? Or another way to put it, shouldn’t the queue only take into effect if the threshold is exceeded? I mean that literally and not literally, I don’t know how it technically works, but I would assume the queue would flow naturally, if I have 10 checkout lanes in a supermarket, and I have 8 people waiting, that shouldn’t cause a jam?
  • Basic ALTQ/PRIQ rules causing poor stability on Vodafone Gigafast

    1
    0 Votes
    1 Posts
    424 Views
    No one has replied
  • Ackqueue versus Queue

    3
    0 Votes
    3 Posts
    870 Views
    S
    @lonnie said in Ackqueue versus Queue: downloading a little faster if I set Ackqueue to a higher priority queue than the regular queue Basically, yes. The idea is the ACKs get sent out as fast as possible so the web server streams the download more consistently. The shaping wizard does this by default. This may help: https://www.slideshare.net/NetgateUSA/traffic-shaping-basics-with-priq-pfsense-hangout-february-2016 I think that's from this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=it_5xvC28vs&ab_channel=Netgate
  • FQ_CODEL only working on downstream?

    3
    0 Votes
    3 Posts
    839 Views
    M
    well good news and bad news, it seems everything is looking good in terms of FQ_CODEL for all real physical clients, and for virtual machines but not for docker containers. I run Pfsense in a virtual machine, on my esxi host as well as unraid in a virutal machine (both on the same physical host) and the unraid virtual machine runs docker containers. esxi host pfsense vm || unraid docker containers I have 2 physical ethernet ports on the esxi host, so I dedicated one for WAN and one for LAN for easy segregation. pfsense being the sole VM with access to WAN vswitch In order for docker to use subnet addresses for containers (hosting them at different addresses than the host address) requires macvlan or ipvlan network settings in docker. I opted for macvlan as some random internet article mentioned that cpu overhead was higher using ipvlan than macvlan. Now the way in which macvlan is done is through mac for forging the mac address. The security settings in esxi virtual networking permit this so I was forced to enable promiscuous mode and forged transmits, placing the docker host on its own port group within the same vswitch. This fixed the docker address issue but created problems in relation to FQ_CODEL as now when traffic was coming in destined for docker, it didn't appear to journey through the pfsense vm first. I thought it was strange that a rule which usually has 2k+ states created, only had 7 but didn't really think much of it at the time. i've now changed to ipvlan docker network setting but this hasn't resolved the issue. I have disabled promiscuous mode and forged transmits, and placed the docker host back on the same port group within the same vswitch. Traffic rules seem to all properly be flowing through pfsense now but I still have it bypassing FQ_CODEL for some reason. At this point i'm not really sure where to go from here, it could be pfsense it could be docker, it could be my own user error. What is a strange observation is that it sometimes works. For example starting a large downstream file transfer (for now I have set up quite low artificial limits of 50mbps down and 15 mbps up so I can easily observe if its clamping appropriately) [image: 7189836b9d8489bdc917f61635b7a4ce.gif] for a time it did clamp appropriately (although at a lower rate than it should) then it progressively gets higher. If the rules didn't exist then it would have started off at 600 mbps. During the times where its clamped at 25mbps (even though it should be 50) the traffic was visible and updating in the firewall rules. After it went beyond that the left hand counter stopped going up. Okay returned to this after a couple of hours of head scratching and found the culprit. The half speed is a result of lan side rules + floating rules, which in effect double up and cause half bandwidth. Disabling one of them resolved that part. Since this is a service which required port forwarding I had an additional rule (i don't use floating rules, i prefer the old rule style of applying them to lan interfaces with a single lan to lan rule at the top which doesn't use fq_codel). It appears that a racing condition was happening, in that traffic meant for the VPN was split between 2 different rules (the LAN rule and the port forwarding rule on the VPN interface). This was what resulted in the weird behaviour of it clamping for a time and then not. Once a significant amount of clamping had occurred, traffic was flowing through the VPN interface rule which didn't have FQ_CODEL limiters placed on it. Why this behaviour occurs I have no clue, its a fun little racing condition. When you add them both together, it results in the correct amount of traffic flowing through the interface too. [image: 68c6664a4e3604b52eec2a5f65600bad.png] Lan side [image: 4b7523bceb808b8a342794d0b8648cc9.png] VPN side This all occurred on PFsense CE 2.6 and now at this point I think I can comfortably say everything is working as normal. In my foolishness I sidegraded / upgraded to pfsense plus 22.05 and this caused the behaviour to perform differently / poorly. In CE 2.6 FQ_CODEL clamping happens instantly. In 22.05 it was delayed, which caused latency spikes until it got it under wraps. [image: dd82432d34fb0c242e3c107227e6c817.png] Might not be clearly visible, but you can kind of see the sawtoothing occurring in 22.05. Its more clearly visible on the 1h resolution but only shows 1 instance of it occurring. [image: 9ff859d28d31c27bb92ab970e8d2b1e5.png] So thats it! i've now got a working setup with pfsense 2.6.0 and i'll stick to this now until something major comes down the pipelines or some bugs exist.
Copyright 2025 Rubicon Communications LLC (Netgate). All rights reserved.