1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

QoS versus BW Limiting

Discussion in 'Tomato Firmware' started by SteveF, Jan 15, 2013.

  1. SteveF

    SteveF Serious Server Member

    I just started the same post again dealing with my renter and his shenanigans.

    He is behaving himself and not doing any P2P, so there is a truce, for now anyway, hoping this is it.

    One thing I noticed though: When I went to Device List a few days ago, the 2 wired devices showed up under Interface as br0 and the two wireless devices showed up as eth1. Yesterday the first time 'this guy's' (his name is Stephen) device showed up as br0, and the other wireless showed up normally as eth1. I also noticed that the eth1 (the 'good guy') device downloaded a very large amount, around (usually this is not the case) and Stephen's device downloaded very little (again this is not the case normally). Then I went to Last 24 Hours and saw only 80 MB for the good guy, inconsistent with his Daily display. Somewhere in the process 1 GB was not accounted for.

    Here is what I think: since I threatened him to cut him off the Internet earlier when he did his P2P, I think he might have talked the 'good guy' into to allowing him to connect to the Internet through the 'good guy's' client as a bridge. This way I could only cut him off if I cut the 'good guy' off as well. If this is the case, where would Stephen's and Ryan's (the 'good guy) downloaded amount show up in IPTraffic? Under Stephen's iP or under the IP of Ryan. Any comment by anybody?

    Their download is now within the range and it seems manageable, so if it continues like this I will not exceed my monthly cap. I am just curious, as an engineer, what may be happening here. If Stephen starts his shenanigans again with P2P I can throttle him down as I did before.

    I am using version tomato-ND-1.28.7633.3-Toastman-VLAN-IPT-Std.trx on an Asus WL-520GU router.

    Thanks for your reply in advance.

    Steve
     
  2. SteveF

    SteveF Serious Server Member

    Looks like I found the answer: when a wireless client disconnects, its IP still remains in the Device List but instead of showing up as 'eth1' under the Interface, it shows up as 'br0'. giving a potential misleading indication that the client is connected to the bridge rather than the wireless network. Looks like nothing sinister is going on, I needed time to figure this out.
     
  3. SteveF

    SteveF Serious Server Member

    Monk, I noticed you on another post. I need to have the Tomato model in order to relate to wan1, br0 and so forth. Here is a block diagram, would you say it is accurate?

    http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r20692744-

    Thanks,

    Steve
     
  4. Monk E. Boy

    Monk E. Boy Network Guru Member

    That block diagram looks accurate for a WRT-54G/GL but block diagrams sometime vary between router manufacturers and models.

    For example, this is how an RT-N16 is laid out internally. I've never touched a 520G before, maybe someone else can speak up with their experience there.

    That being said, the br0/eth1 situation is as you describe them. With a single router, any wireless client that the router knows about but hasn't connected in a short time period gets bumped from eth1 to br0. Eventually, after a longer timeout, the router forgets their MAC address and doesn't list them under br0 anymore.

    Unfortunately I can't speak to specifics about iptraffic because with my load, line speed, and general router borderline-ness I haven't been able to run it. Though... now that I'm on an N66 at home I should be able to turn it on at home...
     
  5. sarelc

    sarelc Addicted to LI Member

    Hi SteveF, the interface names do indeed differ by default across different routers, but also based on your settings, such as VLANs and what type of WAN you use. For example, I have two identical routers, one using PPPoE DSL which shows "WAN (ppp0)", while the other one using a DHCP Cable connection shows "WAN (eth1)".

    The important thing to take away here is probably this: Unless the client you want to monitor is the only client on interface X, the Bandwidth page will not be sufficient. In your case, ALL wireless traffic falls into the WL chart.

    There are of course alternatives - the easiest, assuming your Tomato version has it, is the IP Traffic page used in conjunction with static IPs. The results of this should be accurate if the client is not setting his own IP and is only using the Internet (i.e. no LAN traffic, such as from his phone to his laptop via wifi). If this is not feasible, you could try assigning his address to a new VLAN, which I believe should give you a new interface tab on the bandwidth page. A similar solution is to create a second virtual wireless LAN - what is commonly referred to on the forum as a Guest network. That way you can tell your problem user your setup has changed, and give him access to the new SSID while you continue to use the main one. The only problem with this is he may find out the other tenants haven't switched too, but this is unlikely to come up as long as everyone's Internet keeps working.

    These last two methods should (via command line if not through the GUI) should also allow you to set stricter QOS/BW rules specifically for the virtual interface he is using, either all the time or perhaps during peak hours when everyone is online. I have myself used a second router as an AP, and used its QOS rules to limit those users' throughput, but it's a whole different game when you're working with a single piece of hardware. I haven't had to make those changes myself so I can't give you any details, but I'm sure if you look around there will be plenty of help.

    A final suggestion, is switch to a friendlier ISP. In many areas bandwidth caps are on their way out again, so you may not have to look far to find a proper unlimited package which would at least dissolve the financial aspect of the problem.
     
  6. SteveF

    SteveF Serious Server Member

    sarelc, thanks for the ideas, I really appreciate them. You are correct about the ISP capping the download. I am in Canada. I called my ISP and they told me that the Canadian CRTC (Canadian Radio and Television Commission) requires every ISP above a certain download speed (I think he mentioned 7 Mbps) to cap their packages. He hinted that this might change. Also, where I live, this one is the only major company, there are smaller ones but they use the cabling of this company. Anyway, I am OK with the package, although I would like to have a capless one. The choices are not as good as in the US (I assume that is where you are).

    Thanks for your informative response.
     
  7. SteveF

    SteveF Serious Server Member

    Can someone please help me with setting up VLAN, step by step. I tried to google it but there is a lot of confusing information. What I want to do is set up a guest wireless network which is separate from my own network, that is, the clients on one etwork do not see clients on the other network (security). I have never used CLI and I do not know how to get into it. In addition, I have the feeling that doing it via CLI I have to set up SSH. Is the case? Again a step by step instruction would help especially if you had done this before. If you use any acronyms, please do not assume that I may know what they mean.

    I do appreciate your help
     
  8. bmupton

    bmupton Serious Server Member

    Your ISP is feeding you a load of crap. My ISP (Sasktel in Saskatchewan) has up to 200mbps fiber service available with no cap and no overage. In fact, the only caps and overages they have is on the wireless 3G/LTE service (Unlimited has a 10GB cap and you're throttled after that). He's giving you a line so you don't ask to many questions about your ISP's business practices. ;-) (Now, if you want to move to Saskatchewan just for better Internet I believe you should be committed).

    As for your VLAN issue, does your build of Tomato have the VLAN GUI? If it does, it's dirt simple (I got mine working in about a half hour of tinkering and up until that point I had never used a VLAN in my life.) If it does not, is there something preventing you from using a build that does?
     
  9. sarelc

    sarelc Addicted to LI Member

    I'm also in Ontario (you mentioned this in your earlier thread that got lost). Just because the other ISPs use the same lines does not mean they have the same packages, that's an outright lie to discourage you from going somewhere better. I can recommend TekSavvy, who offers unlimited packages on both DSL and Cable at every speed tier. They provide DSL to Bell Canada areas (and some others), and I believe their cable access is in Rogers, Cogeco, Shaw, and Videotron territories. So depending where you are, there are lots of options available to you - granted your installation/activation experience may be tainted slightly as the major players give low priority to customers using alternative services. Which is really idiotic considering a major portion of your subscription fees still go right into their pockets.
     
  10. SteveF

    SteveF Serious Server Member

    Sarelc,

    I talked to TekSavvy. They use Bell wiring and in my area, they said, the wiring is rated at 500 Kbps download. The area in brand new, we moved in June 2011 into a new house, The left hand does not know what the right hand is doing. Even Bell and the wiring is theirs. They speculate that the our area might be too far away from the junction point. Rogers is not in our area, Bell gave me quote for 500 Kbps download, they said they could try 5 Mbps but they can not guarantee, it is on me. The only viable ISP in our area is Cogeco and this the ISP I am currently using. It is very frustrating. i agree everything you said, but I still say that my options are limited here where I live.
     
  11. sarelc

    sarelc Addicted to LI Member

    500kbps as in, 0.5Mbps??? That's terrible. What city are you in if you don't mind me asking?
     
  12. SteveF

    SteveF Serious Server Member

    Lindsay, ON
     
  13. sarelc

    sarelc Addicted to LI Member

    I swear someone told me FTTH was available in Lindsay, but I can't find any reference to it now.

    You might want to check with Nexicom if you haven't - they provide ADSL2+ (up to 25mbps) with no caps, but only to customers who are connected directly to the Bell CO at the intersection of William and Bond (link). I suspect you're too far away (or connected via a remote) based on what Teksavvy told you, but IIRC Nexicom is a bit of exceptional case as they have their own equipment at the CO rather than just relaying through Bell's so I would ask them directly.

    Really the only other option is EORN, but they haven't started building their last mile yet. The backbone is complete, and they estimate access will be available downtown as of this summer - but no word yet on whether it's going to be via wireless, DSL, or other...
     
  14. SteveF

    SteveF Serious Server Member

    sarelc, thanks for doing the research for me. However, I already looked into several things and I found that not too many options are available. I do not have a telephone line in my house, it is only cable (2 cables, one for Cogeco, the other for Bell). Bell we already talked about in terms of cable. The other alternative would be Bell satellite, it would be too much of a change for me, I would not go that direction. Since I do not have a telephone line in my house ADSL is out. I would not go with Bell anyway, I find them an inflexible, large bureaucratic company - my experience with them is long story I am not going into it. Bottom line: I stay with Cogeco for now until I find a better one.
     
  15. Monk E. Boy

    Monk E. Boy Network Guru Member

    Wow, a new house and the wiring is capped that low? While I hate everything else about our internet down here, in the US when they build a new subdivision the telco & other providers normally build a new CO and related equipment to handle the additional load.

    On the other hand, one of my employer's satellite offices, located in an long-established business park, is so far away from the CO the best service they can get is 3Mb/512Kb DSL at $75/mo. Unless we want to pay $10K for someone to run fiber, wait six months for the install to happen, and then pay $1800/mo for the service. I must be getting old, I remember when companies would expand their networks on their dime, so they could attract more customers...
     
  16. SteveF

    SteveF Serious Server Member

    Monk, I found that BW Limiting does not seem to work. Maybe I am doing something wrong. I try to BW limit myself. I put in DL as 1000/1500 and UL as 250/300. The I go to site speedtest.net and the DL still shows up as 10 Mbps and download aroun650 Kbps. Or, the speed test is not effected by the BW limiting?
     
  17. bmupton

    bmupton Serious Server Member

    I'm not sure that's ever been the case...wasn't most of the infrastructure in the good old days paid for by huge subsidies from the government? (a.k.a. your tax dollars) I'm a poor case to study though...my ISP is owned by the provincial government, so it's a sure bet their network was paid for with partly government money.

    Have you actually enabled it for a network in the settings though? Just turning it on doesn't do anything...you need to specify which interfaces are affected by the bw limiting.
     
  18. Porter

    Porter LI Guru Member

    Why would you even turn it on, if you can have QoS? Keep in mind that you can't use both at the same time.
     
  19. SteveF

    SteveF Serious Server Member

    Yes, first I clicked ADD, then I filled in the parameters (the IP and the UL/DL limts), then I clicked OK and then I clicked SAVE. This is how I remember wanting to do it, but doing it actually may be another matter. From what you are saying if it is done right it should work, right? I will try again in the near future. Once I tested it again the right way, I will let you know.

    Thanks!
     
  20. bmupton

    bmupton Serious Server Member

    I'm running a teaman build, and I've used the bandwidth limiter with success. I also believe QoS needs to be enabled for it to work (I don't have remote access to my router so I can't look at what the page actually says, but that rings a bell)
     
  21. SteveF

    SteveF Serious Server Member

    In my case QoS is enabled. I will try it later when I have time. I am running tomato-ND-1.28.7633.3-Toastman-VLAN-IPT-ND-Std.trx, so it is a Toastman build. My guess is since the basic code is shared between these builds, the BW Limiter should work the same way.

    One question regarding speed test. If the BW Limiter is defined and enable, do you think it should show up in speed test?

    Thanks for your responses.
     
  22. Monk E. Boy

    Monk E. Boy Network Guru Member

    Well, in the USduring the 80s and 90s it was primarily paid for by companies - except in cases of rural expansion but I'm not talking about the boonies, I'm talking about expanding coverage within an area they already have a presence in. It seems the lower the corporate tax rate goes the less investment companies are willing to do. </grumpysoapbox>
     
  23. SteveF

    SteveF Serious Server Member

    bmupton, I just tested the BW Limitier and I realized the the QoS box on the top was not checked. You mentioned it but I was thinking of the separate QoS page. I can say that it works and doing the speed test the limited speed shows up during that test. A pretty good correlation of the DL/UL speed between the limiter and the test itself.
     
  24. SteveF

    SteveF Serious Server Member

    Porter, I agree with you. BW Limiting is just another option. In my mind it is more general because it generally slows down the person's operation as opposed to QoS where you can tailor the speed to different types of operation.
     
  25. bmupton

    bmupton Serious Server Member

    Sounds like you got it figured out then. Excellent.

    Yeah, it's like a brute force method to slow *everything* down, not just the traffic that should be slow. But, it can be effective in controlling a bad egg...Set the limiter to something so regular web browsing/email works fine (albeit slowly) and makes things like torrenting impossibly slow...It still meets your requirements of providing Internet access to the tenant, but prevents them from killing your connection.
     
  26. SteveF

    SteveF Serious Server Member

    I still have a lingering question which I do not have answer for. If I use both QoS and BW limiting what takes precedence for the UL and DL values. Example ONLY:

    1. QoS Limits - DL: 10000 Kbps, UL: 1000 Kbps
    2. Class 'Media' DL - 30% - 50% (so now it would be for this class DL: 3000-5000)
    3. Class 'Media' UL: 20% - 30% )so now it would be for this class UL: 200-300)
    4. No I use BW Limiting: DL: 3000/5000, UL: 300/500

    Here is the question: The 'Media' UL and DL percentages in QoS now will be applied to the BW Limiting values for 'Media' or the QoS specification will be overriden and only the BW Limiting limits will be used for 'Media' class? If I use BW Limiting, would it interfere with QoS or supersede it and only the BW Limiting values will be used for a specific IP/MAC address?
     
  27. Porter

    Porter LI Guru Member

    Only use QoS or BW Limiter, not both at the same time.
     
  28. SteveF

    SteveF Serious Server Member

    Porter, thanks. I used both and everything came to a mindbogglingly low speed. I thought immediately that something was not right, hence the post. So I assume I can not used QoS for one client and BW Limiting for another. It is uniform across the board, one or the other.
     

Share This Page