Playing with fq_codel in 2.4



  • @xciter327 said in Playing with fq_codel in 2.4:

    My guess would be to place it at the very top of the floating rule set. I believe pf does "match most specific" unless "quick match" is selected.

    pf is last match wins unless quick is enabled. Quick is enabled by default on interface rules but has to be selected on floating rules



  • Good to hear. I did not know about the default quick on interface rules. That explains some things.



  • I've rebuilt my network a bit, but I am not sure when this was happened — one PC behind pfSense always get the A or A+ rating and the other get the D or even lower grade rating on dslreports, both are on the same LAN. FQ_CODEL configuration is similar to the others in this thread except only that it is applied on the LAN side (LAN to any). When I disable limiters, then both PCs get A or A+ rating. Does anyone have an idea, what is going wrong?



  • What about Dual WAN?

    I've used the previous post (https://forum.netgate.com/post/807490), with my best guess modifications for two WANs (duplicated rules for each WAN, and duplicated queues), and received good grades on the DSLReports test. However, I use a dual WAN fallover setup. I noticed, today, when WAN1 went down and PFSense switched to WAN2, all traffic stopped. Removing the floating rules fixed the issue.

    The two WANs have different speeds.

    Does anyone have this working with dual WAN setup (different WAN speeds) in a fallover configuration? If so, what do your floating rules look like?

    @uptownVagrant Do you have any suggestions to modify your steps for dual WAN w/ fallover?

    Thanks, in advance, for any suggestions.



  • OK! I have fallen down the rabbit hole of bufferbloat! EEK!
    I've followed the Netgate video/slides on creating limiters without much benefit.
    I get a B for bufferbloat at DSLReports and A's for Quality and Overall.
    I have a 300/25 (advertised) Comcast cable connection. Tried changing the bandwidth down (reducing) , and the queue lengths (+/-/eliminating) w/o benefit. At this point, the DL queue length is set at 2000 and seems to be best so far. UL does not appear to be a problem. Any thing I can do short of getting a life? :)



  • @provels without the limiter rules enabled, and your filters reloaded and old states killed, what speeds are you seeing when you run the dslreports.com/speedtest for 60 seconds? It could be that Comcast's burst capacity during short tests may be heavily skewing your results - I seem to remember the default test duration only being 20 seconds. I think you may have to create an account and go into the preferences of the speed test to increase upload and download duration to 60s. There's always the flent project if you're savvy.

    Another thought, depending on how close your current limiter config is to the Comcast circuit sustained cap, you may be running into some buffering on your cable modem. What DOCSIS version is your cable modem operating?

    I'm assuming you're testing with a computer attached to your router/switch with an Ethernet cable and not using Wi-Fi.

    You could try halving your advertised values in your limiters and then increasing from there after each test. Note, if you're using FQ_CoDel then the queue length that you set in the limiter config is not being used. FQ_CoDel manages queue lengths dynamically and works to dequeue packets within the target you set.

    Here's a guide that might help although I would suggest leaving target, interval, quantum, limit, and flows set as the pfSense defaults for the initial tests.:
    https://forum.netgate.com/topic/112527/playing-with-fq_codel-in-2-4/815

    Best of luck



  • @ohbobva I'm running dual WAN with different speeds, and all you need to do is duplicate your setup. i.e. create four different limiters - upstream WAN1, upstream WAN2, downstream WAN1, downstream WAN2, and then a queue within each of those limiters. Set up four floating rules for WAN1-IPv4, WAN1-IPv6, WAN2-IPv4, WAN2-IPv6 and it all works as advertised. Be careful not to just create two queues within the same limiter as the limit will be the aggregate bandwidth of the two.



  • @Pentangle said in Playing with fq_codel in 2.4:

    @ohbobva I'm running dual WAN with different speeds, and all you need to do is duplicate your setup. i.e. create four different limiters - upstream WAN1, upstream WAN2, downstream WAN1, downstream WAN2, and then a queue within each of those limiters. Set up four floating rules for WAN1-IPv4, WAN1-IPv6, WAN2-IPv4, WAN2-IPv6 and it all works as advertised. Be careful not to just create two queues within the same limiter as the limit will be the aggregate bandwidth of the two.

    I'm having hard time to follow you, do you mind taking a screenshot of your config ? Thanks in advance, very much appreciated.



  • @uptownVagrant said in Playing with fq_codel in 2.4:

    Thanks very much for your quick reply ;)

    @provels without the limiter rules enabled, and your filters reloaded and old states killed, what speeds are you seeing when you run the dslreports.com/speedtest for 60 seconds? It could be that Comcast's burst capacity during short tests may be heavily skewing your results - I seem to remember the default test duration only being 20 seconds. I think you may have to create an account and go into the preferences of the speed test to increase upload and download duration to 60s. There's always the flent project if you're savvy.

    Did as you suggested, I get results as follows. Looked at flent, but I'm Windows. My upload is no issue, with or without limiters, but the download bloat is normally in the 60-90ms range.

    179/24 Mbps
    189/23
    169/24
    

    This result is pretty typical.
    06669f6b-a55e-4d35-ae2b-d378e2aedb38-image.png
    This is a typical result using the Ookla Speed Test (client version)
    2ff55461-d592-4813-80df-78548cf86bb0-image.png >

    Another thought, depending on how close your current limiter config is to the Comcast circuit sustained cap, you may be running into some buffering on your cable modem. What DOCSIS version is your cable modem operating?

    Modem is a Netgear CM600, DOCSIS 3.0, 24x8, Broadcom

    I'm assuming you're testing with a computer attached to your router/switch with an Ethernet cable and not using Wi-Fi.

    Yes, testing wired, but my pfSense is a VM running in Hyper-V and I'm testing from the host Desktop session. Maybe I'll wire up my laptop.

    You could try halving your advertised values in your limiters and then increasing from there after each test.

    I'll start by halving my DL BW and add from there.

    Note, if you're using FQ_CoDel then the queue length that you set in the limiter config is not being used. FQ_CoDel manages queue lengths dynamically and works to dequeue packets within the target you set.

    Noted and deleted.

    Here's a guide that might help although I would suggest leaving target, interval, quantum, limit, and flows set as the pfSense defaults for the initial tests.:
    https://forum.netgate.com/topic/112527/playing-with-fq_codel-in-2-4/815

    Best of luck

    Thanks for the tips. I'll check out the guide and report back. Thanks again! :)



  • I can start a new thread if more appropriate...

    What is the best way to prioritize WiFi Calling traffic while using an FQ_CoDel limiter setup?

    I have a setup with 30 - 80 WiFi clients. Currently using limiters and FQ_CoDel which seems to share the bandwidth very nicely. We have been having problems with WiFi Calling not being super reliable. We are in a cellular dead zone so people are relying on it.

    I was able to improve WiFi calling reliability by changing the Firewall Optimization to Conservative and changing the outbound NAT mode to Automatic rule generation.

    I would like to further optimize by making sure all the WiFi calling traffic has top priority.



  • This really is the thread from hell isn't it? I'd do a new thread.

    Over on linux (and not bsd as yet), we did this:

    https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/atc17/atc17-hoiland-jorgensen.pdf

    Skip to the MOS score at the end, and work back. There's support now for intel, qca, and mediatek chips. However... if you can get the clients to dscp mark for the VO or VI queue for how your AP defines it, that helps in that direction, and
    it is generally possible to build a more complicated qos/sqm setup that explicitly prioritizes voip out of the ipfw tools.

    In general I'm a big believer in short (fair) queues and lots of 'em, and not huge on prioritization. sch_cake (also mentioned on this thread), has some built-in optimizations as well.



  • This post is deleted!


  • @dtaht said in Playing with fq_codel in 2.4:

    This really is the thread from hell isn't it? I'd do a new thread.

    Over on linux (and not bsd as yet), we did this:

    https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/atc17/atc17-hoiland-jorgensen.pdf

    Skip to the MOS score at the end, and work back. There's support now for intel, qca, and mediatek chips. However... if you can get the clients to dscp mark for the VO or VI queue for how your AP defines it, that helps in that direction, and
    it is generally possible to build a more complicated qos/sqm setup that explicitly prioritizes voip out of the ipfw tools.

    In general I'm a big believer in short (fair) queues and lots of 'em, and not huge on prioritization. sch_cake (also mentioned on this thread), has some built-in optimizations as well.

    Thank you, dthat. I will look at this information.

    New thread:
    https://forum.netgate.com/topic/145924/prioritize-wifi-calling-traffic-and-fq_codel



  • After limiters and rules are in effect and states have been initially cleared, is it necessary to dump the states every time a modification is made to the limiters during testing? Thanks.



  • @provels said in Playing with fq_codel in 2.4:

    After limiters and rules are in effect and states have been initially cleared, is it necessary to dump the states every time a modification is made to the limiters during testing? Thanks.

    I clear them every time. Also monitor syslog to check if there are any errors.



  • I keep seeing these errors in my system log-

    fq_codel_enqueue maxidx = 797
    fq_codel_enqueue over limit
    fq_codel_enqueue maxidx = 797
    fq_codel_enqueue over limit
    fq_codel_enqueue maxidx = 797
    fq_codel_enqueue over limit
    fq_codel_enqueue maxidx = 797
    fq_codel_enqueue over limit
    fq_codel_enqueue maxidx = 797
    

    They seem to show at random times maybe 2 or 3 times a week and will repeat for a few minutes before stopping. Not sure if they represent a problem or how to fix them? Could definitely use any advice.



  • Hi guys, I'm new here and just followed the YouTube video from Netgate on how to set up fq codel with limiters. But then browsing this thread, I see people saying those settings are wrong and to use 'Tail Drop' as the queue management algorithm? I'm confused, why?

    Also, any recommendation on settings I should use? I have a gigabit verizon fios connection. It's hit 940/900 on Verizon's test if I recall correctly. Actually the upload has gotten over 900 a few times, the download is usually 500-700 on normal speed test sites except Verizon's where it can hit 900+ (and dslreports which has gotten it to 800+ a few times). I have a Plex Media Server and a gaming machine on the network.

    Using the settings from the YouTube vid got my Bufferbloat score to go from A to A+ in dslreports' test.



  • @subzerogts If you are at A+, I don't expect you have much to gain, LOL. I followed the video and also tried the tail drop config. Nothing seems to help me. Bloat is a B/C, Quality is A/B and Speed is D/F, even though the Ookla speedtest client gets me my advertised 300/25 to various local servers (even when limiting the Down limiter to 150. Nonsensical. Completely random speedtest-cli results testing from an inside server through pfSense and at the DSLReports test page. I don't know if maybe it's Comcast, my modem or what.
    ddb1039d-0116-4bd4-8046-0d6ee00ab863-image.png
    e0e0a0ac-6e24-472a-9da4-97854c1953af-image.png



  • If I want to disable the limiters, I know there are checkboxes for that. But if I just disable the floating rules and reset states, that gets them out of the system anyway, right?



  • @wgstarks said in Playing with fq_codel in 2.4:

    I keep seeing these errors in my system log-

    fq_codel_enqueue maxidx = 797
    fq_codel_enqueue over limit
    fq_codel_enqueue maxidx = 797
    fq_codel_enqueue over limit
    fq_codel_enqueue maxidx = 797
    fq_codel_enqueue over limit
    fq_codel_enqueue maxidx = 797
    fq_codel_enqueue over limit
    fq_codel_enqueue maxidx = 797
    

    They seem to show at random times maybe 2 or 3 times a week and will repeat for a few minutes before stopping. Not sure if they represent a problem or how to fix them? Could definitely use any advice.

    @wgstarks - what are your fq-codel parameters set to? One thing you might try is increasing the the value for the limit parameter. Here is a a link to some good documentation on what each parameter does:

    http://caia.swin.edu.au/freebsd/aqm/downloads.html

    Hope this helps.



  • @provels said in Playing with fq_codel in 2.4:

    @subzerogts If you are at A+, I don't expect you have much to gain, LOL. I followed the video and also tried the tail drop config. Nothing seems to help me. Bloat is a B/C, Quality is A/B and Speed is D/F, even though the Ookla speedtest client gets me my advertised 300/25 to various local servers (even when limiting the Down limiter to 150. Nonsensical. Completely random speedtest-cli results testing from an inside server through pfSense and at the DSLReports test page. I don't know if maybe it's Comcast, my modem or what.
    ddb1039d-0116-4bd4-8046-0d6ee00ab863-image.png
    e0e0a0ac-6e24-472a-9da4-97854c1953af-image.png

    @provels - how do the results change if you reduce the number of parallel streams during the DSL Reports speed test? Also, have you tried changing / tuning any of the fq-codel parameters?

    Something else I thought of: I admit that I don't know a lot about cable modems, but is buying a DOCSIS 3.1 cable modem an option? As far as I can tell DOCSIS 3.1 includes AQM part of the specification:

    https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8034

    Hope this helps.



  • @subzerogts said in Playing with fq_codel in 2.4:

    Hi guys, I'm new here and just followed the YouTube video from Netgate on how to set up fq codel with limiters. But then browsing this thread, I see people saying those settings are wrong and to use 'Tail Drop' as the queue management algorithm? I'm confused, why?

    Also, any recommendation on settings I should use? I have a gigabit verizon fios connection. It's hit 940/900 on Verizon's test if I recall correctly. Actually the upload has gotten over 900 a few times, the download is usually 500-700 on normal speed test sites except Verizon's where it can hit 900+ (and dslreports which has gotten it to 800+ a few times). I have a Plex Media Server and a gaming machine on the network.

    Using the settings from the YouTube vid got my Bufferbloat score to go from A to A+ in dslreports' test.

    When you select FQ_CODEL as scheduler you don't have to worry about setting up queue management algorithms for the queues because fq-codel manages per flow created packet queues automatically as part of fq-codel algorithm. This is why you don't really see any difference in performance if you e.g. select Codel as the queue management algorithm if you have FQ_CODEL selected.

    Having said that, fq-codel is a bit unique in this regard (in that it also manages per flow queues vs. just scheduling packets). In a way you can kind of think of fq-codel as a hybrid or all-in one packet scheduler and queue management algorithm. However, this is not the case for some of the other algorithms you have available to choose from as well as schedulers (e.g. QFQ, Round Robin, etc.). These are actually just scheduling algorithms that determine how packets should be dequeued from one more packet queues (e.g. Round Robin, weighted, etc.) When using one of these scheduling-only algorithms, you'll still have to setup packet queues and then choose an algorithm to manage those queues. In such as scenario, choosing a queue management algorithm will be important and will make a difference in performance.

    Hope this helps.



  • @tman222 BB goes to A and Speed tanks when I reduced DL streams from 24 to 6 or 12. Already bought the new Netgear modem after Comcast bitched about my Motorola for 2 years. Screw it. I'll monitor thread, but for now, I'm off the program.
    Nbbe627a8-720e-48e1-87a4-390519e414ca-image.png



  • @provels said in Playing with fq_codel in 2.4:

    @tman222 BB goes to A and Speed tanks when I reduced DL streams from 24 to 6 or 12. Already bought the new Netgear modem after Comcast bitched about my Motorola for 2 years. Screw it. I'll monitor thread, but for now, I'm off the program.
    Nbbe627a8-720e-48e1-87a4-390519e414ca-image.png

    Thanks @provels for getting back to me. If you don't mind me asking, how are you testing? Are the results consistent across different machines and browsers?



  • @tman222 My pfSense is a VM on Hyper-V and I'm testing from the host through the 10Gb Hyper-V interfaces through an Intel I340 Gb card hosting the v-switches via Cat6 to the modem. It's the only wired machine I have and no diff with other browsers. Results are completely random. Thanks for the help, but I'm not thinking it's worth the effort.



  • @tman222 said in Playing with fq_codel in 2.4:

    @wgstarks - what are your fq-codel parameters set to? One thing you might try is increasing the the value for the limit parameter. Here is a a link to some good documentation on what each parameter does:
    http://caia.swin.edu.au/freebsd/aqm/downloads.html
    Hope this helps.

    Limiters:
    00001:  25.000 Mbit/s    0 ms burst 0 
    q131073  50 sl. 0 flows (1 buckets) sched 65537 weight 0 lmax 0 pri 0 droptail
     sched 65537 type FIFO flags 0x0 0 buckets 0 active
    00002: 400.000 Mbit/s    0 ms burst 0 
    q131074  50 sl. 0 flows (1 buckets) sched 65538 weight 0 lmax 0 pri 0 droptail
     sched 65538 type FIFO flags 0x0 0 buckets 0 active
    
    
    Schedulers:
    00001:  25.000 Mbit/s    0 ms burst 0 
    q65537  50 sl. 0 flows (1 buckets) sched 1 weight 0 lmax 0 pri 0 droptail
     sched 1 type FQ_CODEL flags 0x0 0 buckets 1 active
     FQ_CODEL target 5ms interval 100ms quantum 1514 limit 10240 flows 1024 NoECN
       Children flowsets: 1 
    BKT Prot ___Source IP/port____ ____Dest. IP/port____ Tot_pkt/bytes Pkt/Byte Drp
      0 ip           0.0.0.0/0             0.0.0.0/0        1     1390  0    0   0
    00002: 400.000 Mbit/s    0 ms burst 0 
    q65538  50 sl. 0 flows (1 buckets) sched 2 weight 0 lmax 0 pri 0 droptail
     sched 2 type FQ_CODEL flags 0x0 0 buckets 1 active
     FQ_CODEL target 5ms interval 100ms quantum 1514 limit 10240 flows 1024 NoECN
       Children flowsets: 2 
      0 ip           0.0.0.0/0             0.0.0.0/0        1       90  0    0   0
    
    
    Queues:
    q00001  50 sl. 0 flows (1 buckets) sched 1 weight 0 lmax 0 pri 0 droptail
    q00002  50 sl. 0 flows (1 buckets) sched 2 weight 0 lmax 0 pri 0 droptail
    

    These settings were based on speedtest results.
    Thanks for the link. I'll check it out.



  • @tman222 said in Playing with fq_codel in 2.4:

    @wgstarks - what are your fq-codel parameters set to? One thing you might try is increasing the the value for the limit parameter.

    The limit was set at default 10240 packets. I increased that to 10340, but I'm wondering if that is too small to make any difference. Should I try a larger increase?



  • @wgstarks said in Playing with fq_codel in 2.4:

    @tman222 said in Playing with fq_codel in 2.4:

    @wgstarks - what are your fq-codel parameters set to? One thing you might try is increasing the the value for the limit parameter.

    The limit was set at default 10240 packets. I increased that to 10340, but I'm wondering if that is too small to make any difference. Should I try a larger increase?

    When I saw these messages I ended up doubling the limit value from 10240 to 20480. That might be over-compensating somewhat, but thankfully I have not had any issues since. Hope this helps.



  • @jasonraymundo31 I'll give it a try.

    Limiters

    Floating Rules

    You can see what I meant regarding having different limiters per WAN connection, and a single queue inside each limiter. In the second picture you can also see the use of a floating rule per IPv4 or IPv6 version of each WAN connection. In this instance my IPv6 is provided by Hurricane Electric, and is relatively irrelevant in this matter as it's so rarely used.



  • Have applied settings @uptownVagrant described in post of 27Nov. Running a traceroute (on iMac) I get unexpected results as others have posted.

    traceroute google.com
    traceroute to google.com (172.217.5.110), 64 hops max, 52 byte packets
     1  pfsense.firewall.localdomain (192.168.10.1)  0.531 ms  0.247 ms  0.224 ms
     2  sfo03s07-in-f110.1e100.net (172.217.5.110)  0.942 ms  0.838 ms  0.906 ms
     3  sfo03s07-in-f110.1e100.net (172.217.5.110)  5.972 ms  9.392 ms  7.845 ms
    <snip>
    11  sfo03s07-in-f110.1e100.net (172.217.5.110)  9.272 ms  8.283 ms  8.661 ms
    

    With Floating Rules disabled it works normally

    traceroute google.com
    traceroute to google.com (172.217.5.110), 64 hops max, 52 byte packets
     1  pfsense.firewall.localdomain (192.168.10.1)  0.389 ms  0.156 ms  0.243 ms
     2  192.168.1.254 (192.168.1.254)  0.815 ms  0.810 ms  0.733 ms
     3  <snip>
     9  * * *
    10  108.170.237.106 (108.170.237.106)  8.826 ms
        72.14.235.2 (72.14.235.2)  9.178 ms
        74.125.252.150 (74.125.252.150)  8.790 ms
    11  108.170.236.61 (108.170.236.61)  8.752 ms
        sfo03s07-in-f110.1e100.net (172.217.5.110)  8.728 ms
        108.170.236.61 (108.170.236.61)  8.469 ms
    
    

    I think my limiters & rules are the same, EXCEPT I use pfBlockerNG and it has rules at the TOP of Floating.

    Limiter:

    Limiters:
    00001: 838.000 Mbit/s    0 ms burst 0
    q131073  50 sl. 0 flows (1 buckets) sched 65537 weight 0 lmax 0 pri 0 droptail
     sched 65537 type FIFO flags 0x0 0 buckets 0 active
    00002: 910.000 Mbit/s    0 ms burst 0
    q131074  50 sl. 0 flows (1 buckets) sched 65538 weight 0 lmax 0 pri 0 droptail
     sched 65538 type FIFO flags 0x0 0 buckets 0 active
    
    Schedulers:
    00001: 838.000 Mbit/s    0 ms burst 0
    q65537  50 sl. 0 flows (1 buckets) sched 1 weight 0 lmax 0 pri 0 droptail
     sched 1 type FQ_CODEL flags 0x0 0 buckets 0 active
     FQ_CODEL target 5ms interval 100ms quantum 300 limit 10240 flows 4096 NoECN
       Children flowsets: 1
    00002: 910.000 Mbit/s    0 ms burst 0
    q65538  50 sl. 0 flows (1 buckets) sched 2 weight 0 lmax 0 pri 0 droptail
     sched 2 type FQ_CODEL flags 0x0 0 buckets 0 active
     FQ_CODEL target 5ms interval 100ms quantum 300 limit 10240 flows 4096 NoECN
       Children flowsets: 2
    
    Queues:
    q00001  50 sl. 0 flows (1 buckets) sched 1 weight 0 lmax 0 pri 0 droptail
    q00002  50 sl. 0 flows (1 buckets) sched 2 weight 0 lmax 0 pri 0 droptail
    
    

    pfctl -vvsr | grep “Codel”

    @124(1566879036) pass out quick on igb0 reply-to (igb0 x.x.x.1) inet proto icmp all icmp-type trace keep state label "USER_RULE: work around for fq_Codel limiter"
    @125(1566882242) pass quick on igb0 inet proto icmp all icmp-type echorep keep state label "USER_RULE: work around for fq_Codel limiter"
    @126(1566882242) pass quick on igb0 inet proto icmp all icmp-type echoreq keep state label "USER_RULE: work around for fq_Codel limiter"
    @127(1566882594) match in on igb0 inet all label "USER_RULE: No Improvement in Buffer Bloat: WAN in Codel limi..." dnqueue(1, 2)
    @128(1566795208) match out on igb0 inet all label "USER_RULE: No Improvement in Buffer Bloat: WAN out Codel lim..." dnqueue(2, 1)

    /tmp/rules.limiter

    pipe 1 config  bw 838Mb droptail
    sched 1 config pipe 1 type fq_codel target 5ms interval 100ms quantum 300 limit 10240 flows 4096 noecn
    queue 1 config pipe 1 droptail
     
    
    pipe 2 config  bw 910Mb droptail
    sched 2 config pipe 2 type fq_codel target 5ms interval 100ms quantum 300 limit 10240 flows 4096 noecn
    queue 2 config pipe 2 droptail
    
    

    Any ideas of why I still have incorrect traceroute?



  • @JonH I have the same problem, and after reading 600 more posts in this topic, I believe I have the answer for you.

    You're using a traceroute that uses UDP by default, and you're shaping TCP and UDP, and this is a bug in pfSense.

    You can work around it by using ICMP for traceroutes, e.g. (disclaimer: I'm using Linux):

    alias traceroute='traceroute -I'
    

    Some here have mentioned that you may also be able to work around it by applying the limits on LAN rules, not floating rules, however the alias is good enough for me for now, so I stopped reading at around 600 posts and can't show you what to do there :)



  • @forbiddenlake Thanks for this info. I backed out of fq_codel a couple of months ago but may revisit it using the info you provided.



  • What I don't understand is that with no limiters and QOS disciplines not enabled, my traceroutes are still not working. Where else could there be an issue? I don't need qos now with gigabit fiber.



  • @forbiddenlake said in Playing with fq_codel in 2.4:

    @JonH I have the same problem, and after reading 600 more posts in this topic, I believe I have the answer for you.

    You're using a traceroute that uses UDP by default, and you're shaping TCP and UDP, and this is a bug in pfSense.

    You can work around it by using ICMP for traceroutes, e.g. (disclaimer: I'm using Linux):

    alias traceroute='traceroute -I'
    

    Some here have mentioned that you may also be able to work around it by applying the limits on LAN rules, not floating rules, however the alias is good enough for me for now, so I stopped reading at around 600 posts and can't show you what to do there :)

    Hi, you have details of this bug? thanks.


Log in to reply