QoS / Traffic Shaping / Limiters / FQ_CODEL on 22.05

[TheNarc]

@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:

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.

[Bob.Dig]

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

Seems highly unlikely,

waveform.com definitively does use IPv6.

[SteveITS]

@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.)

[luckman212]

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.

@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.

[luckman212]

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

[luckman212]

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.

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):

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.

[marcosm]

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

[luckman212]

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.

[A Former User]

This post is deleted!

[Destello]

This post is deleted!

[luckman212]

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

[marcosm]

@luckman212 It's being worked on.

[luckman212]

@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.

[luckman212]

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.

[betapc]

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

Thanks.

[luckman212]

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

[Keylimesoda]

@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.

[Gertjan]

@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 ;)

[netblues]

@gertjan Are you sure?
Stock 22.05 was 22.05-RELEASE (amd64)
built on Wed Jun 22 18:56:13 UTC 2022
FreeBSD 12.3-STABLE

20220604 is older.
And as far as redmine says.
https://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/13026?tab=history
It has been resolved in 22.05

[Gertjan]

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

It has been resolved in 22.05

I stand corrected I guess.