Navigation

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

    Wizrd rules src & dest reversed?

    Traffic Shaping
    2
    3
    1781
    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.
    • B
      ben.suffolk last edited by

      I thought I'd give the traffic shaper a go and configured it up for VoIP. I connect to a remote asterisk server, so picked the asterisk option, gave it some bandwidth and off we went.

      I am running 1.2-BETA-1-TESTING-SNAPSHOT-06-04-2007. I check the queues and made a call. I was confused to see that nothing had gone into the VoIP queues. so I checked the rules and found them looking like this :-

      WAN -> LAN  *  * <asterisk box="" ip="">qVOIPDown/qVOIPUp
      LAN -> WAN * <asterisk box="" ip="">* qVOIPUp/qVOIPDown

      I can see that the source and destination were the wrong way round way round, I changed them to this :-

      WAN -> LAN  *  <asterisk box="" ip="">* qVOIPDown/qVOIPUp
      LAN -> WAN * * <asterisk box="" ip="">qVOIPUp/qVOIPDown

      and its all working fine now, the traffic is going into the queues as it should. Thought I'd better mention it as it looks like a bug in the shaper wizard.

      Regards

      Ben</asterisk></asterisk></asterisk></asterisk>

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • S
        sullrich last edited by

        The wizard instructs you to enter the "phone ip".    That is the reason you reversed them.

        Either way we suggest using an alias that contains the phone ip's and any of the internet server or local asterisk server ip's.

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • B
          ben.suffolk last edited by

          @sullrich:

          The wizard instructs you to enter the "phone ip".    That is the reason you reversed them.

          Oops, sorry, must have mis-read that. That makes sense now.

          Ben

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • First post
            Last post