Bandwidth Rate limit each VLAN. I have 80 VLans. Should I upgrade to Beta?



  • Hi everyone. I have a set up with 80 VLANs on a pfsense box (1.2.3-RC1). Each VLAN belongs to a tenant inside an office building. We are beginning to run into bandwidth issues and would like to impose download rate limits on each network.

    The setup is not too complicated at all:

    1. 80 VLANS
    2. DHCP Enabled and configured on all.

    That's about it - Nothing too crazy. I know Beta is "try at your own risk" and I'm hesitant to use it in a corporate environment… but we really need to rate limit each vlan...

    I'm really on the fence here. Should I give it a shot and upgrade to Beta? Any feedback or experience with rate limiting multiple VLANs?

    Thanks!

    Mike



  • I don't understand an assumption that you seem to be making in your post, which is that you can't rate limit each vlan in 1.2.3-RC1. Why not? It will be a bit of a pain to set up, as you'll have to create a filter for each vlan, but you could probably automate that with some pasting in the config file.



  • @clarknova:

    I don't understand an assumption that you seem to be making in your post, which is that you can't rate limit each vlan in 1.2.3-RC1. Why not? It will be a bit of a pain to set up, as you'll have to create a filter for each vlan, but you could probably automate that with some pasting in the config file.

    Hi,
    If you read the documentation about limitations for traffic shaping in 1.2.x, it says :
    The 1.2.x traffic shaper will not work for more than one WAN and one LAN interface. Please look at version 2.0.x for that functionality.

    If you have a workaround, I'm very interested too because we can't use a beta version for production.
    Best Regards



  • @dubwise:

    The 1.2.x traffic shaper will not work for more than one WAN and one LAN interface.

    I suspect their might be some room for a workaround, but I don't have a box to play on at the moment so I'll just shut the heck up. Sorry for the noise.


Log in to reply