• Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • Users
  • Search
  • Register
  • Login
Netgate Discussion Forum
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • Users
  • Search
  • Register
  • Login

QoS / Traffic Shaping / Limiters / FQ_CODEL on 22.05

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Traffic Shaping
59 Posts 20 Posters 16.6k Views
Loading More Posts
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • T
    TheNarc @luckman212
    last edited by Apr 1, 2022, 1:15 PM

    @luckman212 Are you seeing any sort of activity in "Diagnostic > Limiter Info" if you watch it during a speed test? Because it sure sounds as if traffic is somehow not even being directed through your limiters right?

    L 1 Reply Last reply Apr 1, 2022, 1:28 PM Reply Quote 0
    • L
      luckman212 LAYER 8 @TheNarc
      last edited by Apr 1, 2022, 1:28 PM

      @thenarc I do see activity but tbh not quite sure what to look for. I also do see the CoDel Limiter in Floating Rules matching some states.

      I had thought that maybe some of my outbound NAT or policy-based routing rules on the LAN were interfering with this—that's why I did the factory reset, to rule that out. I've been playing around with this script and watching it from the console since it refreshes faster than Diags > Limiter Info, but again nothing jumps out, the bandwidth on the pipes looks correct etc... 🤷

      #/bin/sh
      
      _do() {
        clear
        cat /tmp/rules.limiter
        echo
        echo "PIPES"
        echo "====="
        ipfw pipe show
        echo
        echo "QUEUES"
        echo "======"
        ipfw queue show
        echo
        echo "SCHED"
        echo "====="
        ipfw sched show
        sleep 0.5
      }
      
      while [ 0 ]; do
        _do
      done
      
      T 1 Reply Last reply Apr 1, 2022, 1:52 PM Reply Quote 0
      • T
        TheNarc @luckman212
        last edited by Apr 1, 2022, 1:52 PM

        @luckman212 Yeah in fairness I'm not sure exactly what to look for either aside from just "more than nothing". For example, I see non-zero values in my output for Tot_pkt/bytes:
        33157cff-51f4-4d44-abe2-fa78df0558fb-image.png

        But seeing matches on the floating rule seems like positive confirmation as well. It's definitely a different problem than the one I've been having myself, because my limiters are definitely working (insofar as they're limiting throughput as expected) it's just that I still get catastrophic packet loss and latency on downloads.

        Anyway, grasping at straws here, but I do see that your rule is IPv4 only; is there any chance at all you've got an IPv6 WAN IP and the speed test is using IPv6? Seems highly unlikely, I don't think most speed tests will, but at the moment that's the only idea I've got.

        B S 2 Replies Last reply Apr 1, 2022, 2:17 PM Reply Quote 0
        • B
          Bob.Dig LAYER 8 @TheNarc
          last edited by Apr 1, 2022, 2:17 PM

          @thenarc said in QoS / Traffic Shaping / Limiters / FQ_CODEL on 22.0x:

          Seems highly unlikely,

          waveform.com definitively does use IPv6.

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
          • S
            SteveITS Galactic Empire @TheNarc
            last edited by Apr 1, 2022, 2:38 PM

            @thenarc said in QoS / Traffic Shaping / Limiters / FQ_CODEL on 22.0x:

            speed test is using IPv6

            Comcast also does, there is a small gear icon in the upper right to change to IPv4.

            In particular I've found speed through Hurricane Electric IPv6 is way less than IPv4.

            @luckman212 If the limiter isn't applying then the rule isn't matching. Are you clearing states between making rule/limiter changes? Do the states agree with what you expect? For example a web site file download is an outbound state (device to web server) and the download just returns on that state. (Or from the perspective of the web server's router it would be an inbound connection/state.)

            Pre-2.7.2/23.09: Only install packages for your version, or risk breaking it. Select your branch in System/Update/Update Settings.
            When upgrading, allow 10-15 minutes to restart, or more depending on packages and device speed.
            Upvote 👍 helpful posts!

            L 1 Reply Last reply Apr 1, 2022, 2:53 PM Reply Quote 0
            • L
              luckman212 LAYER 8 @SteveITS
              last edited by luckman212 Apr 1, 2022, 6:02 PM Apr 1, 2022, 2:53 PM

              Definitely no IPv6 here! I've been waiting 12 years for Verizon to roll it out for residential FIOS customers. See this 45+ page thread on DSLreports.

              5efbd787-22b0-47e9-83f6-5a2e244c80b3-CleanShot 2022-04-01 at 14.02.27.png

              @SteveITS yes I am clearing states via pfctl -F state between runs. I don't know how many connections for example the waveform bufferbloat test opens (I'd assume >1, probably dozens) so it's hard to know for sure if the # of states is correct.

              L 1 Reply Last reply Apr 1, 2022, 6:05 PM Reply Quote 0
              • L
                luckman212 LAYER 8 @luckman212
                last edited by Apr 1, 2022, 6:05 PM

                @jimp I just went ahead and bought a TAC Pro sub. Order SO22-30515. Hope I can get some assistance next week.

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • L
                  luckman212 LAYER 8 @jimp
                  last edited by Apr 3, 2022, 8:40 PM

                  An update for anyone following along:

                  Today I unboxed a brand new 6100, flashed 22.01-RELEASE onto it and proceeded to make only ONE configuration change from the default factory config: creating 2 limiters/queues and adding the floating rule exactly as per the offical docs

                  I set the bandwidth at 150Mbps for testing, to ensure I'd be able to easily see if the limiters were working.

                  Guess what? It worked flawlessly.

                  cbcb4631-4856-4fd8-9233-364d696b707e-image.png

                  Next, I went to System > Update and updated to 22.05.a.20220403.0600. No other changes were made.

                  After rebooting, I re-tested and got this (which matches my original problem throughout this thread):
                  e1ab18aa-eac4-4bea-bbec-688426d78524-image.png

                  I diff'ed the config.xml's from before and after the 22.05 upgrade to be sure there were no other changes made behind the scenes (there were not).

                  So now I am even more convinced there's either a bug in 22.05 or something's changed in the ipfw that ships with it that requires some sort of syntax change which hasn't been accounted for.

                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 2
                  • M
                    marcosm Netgate
                    last edited by Apr 4, 2022, 1:14 AM

                    Issue report here:
                    https://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/13026

                    L 1 Reply Last reply Apr 7, 2022, 4:57 PM Reply Quote 2
                    • L
                      luckman212 LAYER 8 @marcosm
                      last edited by Apr 7, 2022, 4:57 PM

                      Since this seems to be just an issue with how the ruleset syntax is generated, is there a way I can manually run a fixup command or hand-edit the rules to fix this problem right now on 22.05? I have a somewhat urgent need to use limiters now...and since 22.05 is still at least 2 months away and I can't roll back my config anymore (too many changes and it's not backwards-compatible with 22.01) it would be very helpful.

                      ? 1 Reply Last reply Apr 8, 2022, 3:26 AM Reply Quote 0
                      • L luckman212 referenced this topic on Apr 7, 2022, 6:34 PM
                      • L luckman212 referenced this topic on Apr 7, 2022, 6:34 PM
                      • ?
                        A Former User @luckman212
                        last edited by A Former User Apr 8, 2022, 3:31 AM Apr 8, 2022, 3:26 AM

                        This post is deleted!
                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • D
                          Destello
                          last edited by Apr 8, 2022, 2:16 PM

                          This post is deleted!
                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                          • L
                            luckman212 LAYER 8
                            last edited by Apr 21, 2022, 10:55 AM

                            Just adding some notes from redmine...

                            Currently this bug (#13026: Limiters do not work) appears to be blocked by the following 2 bugs:

                            • #12579: Utilize dnctl(8) to apply changes without reloading filter
                            • #13027: Input validation prevents adding a floating match rule with limiters and no gateway

                            12579 says "#12003 should be merged first" but even though progress is at 0%, it appears a patch has been merged. 13027 also has a merge request pending. Target on 13027 is 22.09—hope we don't have to wait that long to have functioning limiters again!

                            @jimp is there any movement going on with this (imo) important bug? Thanks

                            M 1 Reply Last reply Apr 26, 2022, 5:59 PM Reply Quote 1
                            • M
                              marcosm Netgate @luckman212
                              last edited by Apr 26, 2022, 5:59 PM

                              @luckman212 It's being worked on.

                              L 1 Reply Last reply Apr 26, 2022, 6:11 PM Reply Quote 1
                              • L
                                luckman212 LAYER 8 @marcosm
                                last edited by Apr 26, 2022, 6:11 PM

                                @marcos-ng Good to know. I just updated to 22.05.a.20220426.1313 and was going to test a bit, but I'll keep waiting for some news on redmine.

                                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                • T thomas.hohm referenced this topic on Apr 29, 2022, 12:37 PM
                                • T thomas.hohm referenced this topic on Apr 29, 2022, 12:37 PM
                                • T thomas.hohm referenced this topic on Apr 29, 2022, 12:38 PM
                                • T thomas.hohm referenced this topic on Apr 29, 2022, 12:38 PM
                                • L
                                  luckman212 LAYER 8 @jimp
                                  last edited by Jun 9, 2022, 1:03 PM

                                  Just reporting back here to wrap this up. I've been busy with other stuff but finally got around to retesting this. All working great on 22.05.r.20220604.1403. It's so nice to have this working again! Increased WAF factor by 10x.

                                  17cdd998-e104-43a2-96d5-8ca4b97e0697-image.png

                                  B 1 Reply Last reply Aug 14, 2022, 2:50 PM Reply Quote 0
                                  • B bsod referenced this topic on Jul 29, 2022, 3:28 PM
                                  • B
                                    betapc @luckman212
                                    last edited by Aug 14, 2022, 2:50 PM

                                    @luckman212 Just one question. Did you use the same settings on post # 1 or did you change something?

                                    Thanks.

                                    L 1 Reply Last reply Aug 15, 2022, 1:27 PM Reply Quote 0
                                    • L
                                      luckman212 LAYER 8 @betapc
                                      last edited by Aug 15, 2022, 1:27 PM

                                      @betapc yes I'm using the same settings described in the guide.

                                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                      • K
                                        Keylimesoda
                                        last edited by Aug 28, 2022, 11:45 PM

                                        @luckman212 I'm still seeing this issue in 22.05-REL?

                                        No matter what limiter I'm putting on the WANDown it's still going full-bandwidth and bufferbloat is suffering.

                                        GertjanG N 2 Replies Last reply Aug 29, 2022, 11:07 AM Reply Quote 0
                                        • GertjanG
                                          Gertjan @Keylimesoda
                                          last edited by Aug 29, 2022, 11:07 AM

                                          @keylimesoda said in QoS / Traffic Shaping / Limiters / FQ_CODEL on 22.05:

                                          I'm still seeing this issue in 22.05-REL?

                                          That's why @luckman212 said :

                                          @luckman212 said in QoS / Traffic Shaping / Limiters / FQ_CODEL on 22.05:

                                          All working great on 22.05.r.20220604.1403.

                                          Go from stock 22.05 to 22.05..r.20220604.1403 and re test ;)

                                          No "help me" PM's please. Use the forum, the community will thank you.
                                          Edit : and where are the logs ??

                                          N 1 Reply Last reply Aug 29, 2022, 12:46 PM Reply Quote 0
                                          • First post
                                            Last post
                                          Copyright 2025 Rubicon Communications LLC (Netgate). All rights reserved.
                                            This community forum collects and processes your personal information.
                                            consent.not_received