Per IP traffic shaping–share bandwith evenly between IP addresses??

[Derelict]

Is this a long-running torrent connection?  Did you clear states after making changes to the limiter?

[Ashfaq]

Oh yes I do reset the states after every change and also sometimes do a restart of PfSense to make sure of it.
its the same case for both long-running and recently-started torrent sessions.

i also noticed something unusual yesterday when for some reason my limiters just stopped working after a simple reboot, had to recreate them to start working properly again and they did, problem resolved.  but the strange thing i noticed in the exercise is that during this problem if a limiter is attached in the firewall rule i could not browse, ping www.google.com site or do any other network stuff like email etc, if i remove the limiter from the rule everything was okay. but the torrents were working full speed all that time without any break, with or without the limiter.

the recreation of limiters (like they were before) resolved the issue, but thats not the point to discuss, the torrents were like they never belonged to the rule or limiter (from the same machine), everything else seems to be effected though.  i looked closely to the diagnostics->limiter-info and i could see the no of packets/bytes from PC that clearly belonged to torrent, which means it was infect passing the queues.

i tried different things with rules and disable, enable, block, pass all the LAN rules but nothing effected the torrent streams(made sure to reset the states after each change).  the firewall logs was also showing the traffic on port torrent was using.

all in all I was clueless as to how to debug this trend.

Thanks for all the help
Regards

[Derelict]

Are you sure you have all your in/out source/dest mask rules right?  You should probably post screenshots of your limiters and the associated firewall rules.

The limiters are application agnostic.  They operate on IP addresses and interfaces.  Given the correct application in rules, they just work.

[Ashfaq]

Screen shots are attached.

its important to mention that i initially tried to use the queue based setup discussed earlier in this thread and u can see my earlier posts with screen-shots for that setup as well.  but since i failed to achieve the desired outcome i am now trying to apply a simple limiter to get this torrent thing resolved first.  and the screen-shots with this message are for this simple setup.

if u like i can post the speed-test and torrent screenshots separately as well with traffic graph n all.

[Derelict]

Hmm.  Are there any queues defined?  What you have should work.

One thing I see is the pass any to !LAN net rule with the limiters on it is unnecessary.  I'd just put the limiters on the pass any any rule.  If it's being processed by the LAN router interface, it's by default !LAN Net.

And the traffic out WAN is mirroring the traffic into LAN right (2.0Mbps when bittorrent is cranking away)?

[Derelict]

Actually, the way you have it, each destination IP will get 512 down and each source IP 128 up, so two downloaders can eat 1Mbit, 3 1.5Mbit, etc.

What are those other queues?

Are you sure there's not some other rules somewhere setting limiters, queues, etc?

Here's a sample that will evenly share 10Mbit down 3Mbit up among IPs


[Derelict]

Hmm… This isn't working for me either.  I currently have a limiter at 1Mbit / 1Mbit with rules on LAN for my desktop and phone.  Speed tests reflect this but I'm downloading torrents at about 10Mbits.  I applied the limiter, killed transmission, cleared all states, and restarted transmission.

Do you have an inbound rule on WAN forwarding your bittorrent listener port to your host?

I did.

I disabled that rule and am now getting better limiter results.  Seems like a limiter on the WAN rule should do the trick but I did try that and it didn't for me.

Now my speed test on the phone that's put in the same limiter gets about 512Kbit down and almost the full 1Mbit up, which is exactly what I would expect.

Anyone know the trick for throttling bittorrent using the limiter?

[Ashfaq]

wow so many messages :-) …. Thanks Derelict for the efforts, i really appreciate that.
now to answer ur queries one by one:

*) no other queues are defined, only limiters and no other rules are defined in firewall. 
*) the LAN to !LAN is there to copy the setup defined in this thread earlier... so just to make sure i am not doing what other are not doing to simplify the debugging of this issue. u r right we dont need that and i have tried the setup without it as well... no diff in result :-( .... one question though... what if i am transferring data from my LAN to PUBLIC (another LAN) ? putting the limiter in default rule might limit that to 2mbps as well.. just a thought.
*)those other queues are related to the equal sharing of 2mbps that i tried earlier based on this thread messages and did not succeed.  they are there and not actually used as of now in any rule.
*)YES ! i have UPNP turned on in pfsense and using a pre-defined-port in torrent application.  although i have not made any specific rule in firewall for this to work.  i even tried turning the UPNP off but didnt help either.

now let me tell u something new i tried....
*)yesterday i reverted back to the OTHER RULES u see on the screen-shots that are there to sharing the 2mbps connection using child queues, i attached those queues to the firewall rule of LAN to !LAN and
*)also created shapper-queues with help of wizard and it made a few floating rules with http(s), smtp, pop as HighPriority and rest as lowpriority.  and
*)then i manually attached the limiter-queues in those torrent related floating-rules and
*)tested again using two windows PC on torrents and an android with regular video streaming and browsing etc.

to my surprise it DID started to share bandwidth b/w the three devices :-)
if i disable those floating-rules, i end up like before... torrents take away ALL the bandwidth and no browsing is possible on android, as soon as i enable those rules i get the sharing working.
i cannot make out why its working but may be u can, so please try that.

Thanks again for all the help.
Regards

[zang3tsu]

@Ashfaq Could you post your final settings again as I 'm hoping to replicate your setup. Thanks!

[Ashfaq]

Check my previous posts in this thread for limiter setup screen-shots.
attached are the screen-shots for floating rules added by wizard and the 2 amendment i made in the p2p rule ONLY:

1. added in/out limiters values
2. changed port range to include ports used by my torrent client.

another observation with this setup is that sometimes my torrents dont get the FULL speed even if they are the ONLY thing running the network.  disabling the floating rules gives it the complete bandwidth.

Ashfaq

[ssp]

Dear all,

I'm a first time poster here - these forums have been tremendously useful just from reading them. Sorry for my phraseology, the terms are still difficult to grasp. We have a college in a developing country - using desktop grade hardware to share 10Mbps synchronous connection among all users. It's slow but it works. We see 100 simultaneous network users regularly, and 300 at peak times. Firewall is pfsense 2.1.5.

Obviously traffic shaping is very important for us. The details given in this thread have been very useful in getting things started. I have also noticed, as some users above, that a one-click rule for this important feature (dynamic per-IP traffic shaping) would be really helpful.

The shaping using limiters described here is a great starting point. It does 'break' occasionally in ways that amateurs will probably never be able to figure out, least of all me. Also, it doesn't 'share' or 'throttle' the bandwidth from hogs (downloaders, with sustained bandwidth usage) to 'new comers' (i.e. someone just trying to load a single webpage) fast enough. Any ideas on this?

In the above scenarios, I'm wondering if this 'burst' feature that's there with limiters might work. However, you have to set that at the parent level. Does that somehow also get shared among dynamic child pipes? Anyone figure out what the units for that are (bytes, kb, mb), or if it always matches the units of the bandwidth specified. I know it's supposed to be an amount/size, not a rate, but I haven't figured out the units of it, or like I said, if it gets divided equally into the child pipes.

[Basi]

Are there any news this will be an official feature? Maybe in 2.2?

[Harvy66]

@ssp:

Dear all,

I'm a first time poster here - these forums have been tremendously useful just from reading them. Sorry for my phraseology, the terms are still difficult to grasp. We have a college in a developing country - using desktop grade hardware to share 10Mbps synchronous connection among all users. It's slow but it works. We see 100 simultaneous network users regularly, and 300 at peak times. Firewall is pfsense 2.1.5.

Obviously traffic shaping is very important for us. The details given in this thread have been very useful in getting things started. I have also noticed, as some users above, that a one-click rule for this important feature (dynamic per-IP traffic shaping) would be really helpful.

The shaping using limiters described here is a great starting point. It does 'break' occasionally in ways that amateurs will probably never be able to figure out, least of all me. Also, it doesn't 'share' or 'throttle' the bandwidth from hogs (downloaders, with sustained bandwidth usage) to 'new comers' (i.e. someone just trying to load a single webpage) fast enough. Any ideas on this?

In the above scenarios, I'm wondering if this 'burst' feature that's there with limiters might work. However, you have to set that at the parent level. Does that somehow also get shared among dynamic child pipes? Anyone figure out what the units for that are (bytes, kb, mb), or if it always matches the units of the bandwidth specified. I know it's supposed to be an amount/size, not a rate, but I haven't figured out the units of it, or like I said, if it gets divided equally into the child pipes.

If you have 300 people sharing only 10mb of bandwidth during peak hours, you might just be best off using the regular traffic shaper, set up just a few rules like

Interface rate: 9.8Mb
–Traffic Link Share: 95%
----UDP Link Share 50% CODEL
----TCP Link Share 50% CODEL
--Important Protocols Link Share 5%
----DNS Link Share: 50%
----ICMP Link Share: 50%

From what I've read, CODEL is quite nice for fighting buffer bloat, which may or may not be an issue.

[switchman]

@Harvy66,

Are you suggesting the user build 4 queues and then run codel on two them.  The reason I ask is I am a new user trying to get handle on traffic shaping for my application.  I am trying to understand the best way to use codel with pfSense.  There does not appear to be much information on the way to use it.

In my case it is for a home router replacement, a RT-N16 running tomato with QoS.  The recent TWC upgrade to 100/5 Mb/s service has caused me to outgrow the the N16 router.

Edit:
Note, I just created some queues via the wizzard and saved them as a test.  When you try an apply codel, the previous queues are erased.

[Harvy66]

@switchman:

@Harvy66,

Are you suggesting the user build 4 queues and then run codel on two them.  The reason I ask is I am a new user trying to get handle on traffic shaping for my application.  I am trying to understand the best way to use codel with pfSense.  There does not appear to be much information on the way to use it.

In my case it is for a home router replacement, a RT-N16 running tomato with QoS.  The recent TWC upgrade to 100/5 Mb/s service has caused me to outgrow the the N16 router.

Edit:
Note, I just created some queues via the wizzard and saved them as a test.  When you try an apply codel, the previous queues are erased.

I don't have anything to back this up, but codel is an algorithm to combat buffer bloat, so it drops packets. I didn't recommend codel on the DNS and ICMP queues because those types of traffic tend to not be high bandwidth in the first place, so a bit of bufferbloat may be less detrimental than dropped packets.

I personally set my packet buffers high for low/fixed bandwidth queues that do no react to dropped packets. Dropping packets is supposed to be a signal to back-off for protocols that implement congestion control.

My logic could be wrong or real world practice may have an interesting interaction, such that non-tail drop tightly smaller queues are always best, but I see no harm in my setup since it only affects me.

P.S. I forgot to include the ACK queue in my example. It should always exist.

Since you're a home user, this is what I use and it seems to work well for me. Mind you, I have a symmetrical pseudo-dedicated connection, so you may need to tweak your upload ACK queue allocation.

https://forum.pfsense.org/index.php?topic=86347.msg474756#msg474756

[M-runner]

@Ashfaq:

Has anybody been successful in equally dividing the bandwidth b/w a pc with torrent download and one with simple browsing?
or a mobile device against with simple data usage and a torrent downloading pc ?

with me the torrent download PC always gets almost all of the bandwidth all the time !

Ashfaq

Hi!

I got this working with torrents. First, configure as foxale08, reply #9-#12. (The only difference is that I used a floating rule instead of a LAN rule, but it should work anyhow.)

Next step: Use the limiters Upload_LAN and Download_LAN again on the bittorrent portforward rule, but use Download_LAN on In and Upload_LAN on Out, because this is a WAN rule.

I tested this and if I limit Download to 10Mb/s and start a torrent, the torrent gets no more than 10Mb/s and then if I try to download from another IP adress, I get 5Mb/s from that client and 5Mb/s to the torrent client even if the bittorrent client has many more connections.

[tsolrm]

I have implemented the solution provided by foxale08 and it works very well.

But if someone used VPN to connect to the network and tried to copy something from the NAS located on the network to their own drive on their homework network - would they be treated just like any other user and they get a fair share?

[cmutwiwa]

I applied foxale08 method for the limiter and it kills internet connection (but I can ping websites), if I disable the limiters internet works fine. I'm also using squid proxy in transparent mode, I haven't tried to uninstall squid but could it be the issue?

[paulsgrigg]

Been struggling getting this to work all day but got it working now :)

Just in case anyone has problems, what fixed it for me is to set the bandwidth a few megabits below what is actually available. We get around 17 mbit over ADSL but the limiter wouldn't work until I set it at 15 (or lower).

I've also had the weird side effect that port reflection seems to have stopped working when accessing from our LAN, NAT rules which forward to our DMZ. Not a big deal at the moment but does anyone know why? The port reflection still seems to work for rules that point to our LAN.

Paul

[hatcherista]

Hi there guys.. i did foxale08's post and it worked very well. our gaming ping is very low for online games such as lol, hon and dota2, however, whenever the lan rule is enabled, all clients seem to have a very hard time browsing the internet, any idea how to solve this issue?

our broadband is 10mbps (yes its quite low) for download and around 600 kbps for upload so i set the limiter at 6mbps download and 512 kbps upload