WRV200: QoS implementation too simplistic to be useful

Discussion in 'Cisco Small Business Routers and VPN Solutions' started by docinthebox, Nov 2, 2006.

  1. docinthebox

    docinthebox LI Guru Member

    Just installed the WRV200 in my SOHO. Noticed that the QoS menu only allows either high priority or low priority. It seems the entire goal is to allow certain high priority traffic like VoIP to have right of way over regular traffic like HTTP. But this does not allow the user to set low priority traffic like background P2P file transfers.

    I think the least implementation to be useful in real life need to have three priority levels: high, regular and low. High for VoIP, low for P2P, and regular for everything else.
  2. ifican

    ifican Network Guru Member

    Well your point is somewhat valid. Its not on the surface as easy to implement as other QoS implementations, but it can be massaged to work just about any way you like. The only thing i dont care much for is the limit user defined limits. I can use QoS for maybe 8 or 10 user defined Ip's and ranges. Then you have to start getting creative with port and application based to get things just right, doable but not very easy. Unless as you have stated you just want to QoS just VOIP.
  3. pablito

    pablito Network Guru Member

    My assumption was that anything not set to high or low is "normal". You just can't distinguish between normal streams. The important streams high and low are taken care of. The CPU can get stressed with too many rules that are being used.
  4. docinthebox

    docinthebox LI Guru Member

    Problem is there are five applications created by default in the QoS menu (HTTP, FTP, POP3, SMTP, TELNET) and there's no way to delete them. So you *have* to set these 5 apps to either high or low. Ideally, I would like to have a way to delete them so they can be set to "normal" priority. Then I can set VoIP to high priority, and P2P file transfer to low priority.
  5. docinthebox

    docinthebox LI Guru Member

    One other unrelated issue with firmware 1.0.23 is that during a BT file transfer, the web admin menu just became totally inaccessible, i.e. I got HTTP status 404 on pointing my web browser to Reloading multiple times did not solve the problem, until I stop the BT client. Seems the connection processes in the router totally hogged the router CPU and did not allow the web server process (i.e. the admin menu) any CPU time at all. Wonder if other WRV200 users have the same experience?
  6. DocLarge

    DocLarge Super Moderator Staff Member Member

    Currently, we're beta testing 1.0.24. The linksys development team have finally experienced the system lockup that syslog brings about (save for the fact toxic, kspare and myself have been telling them this for about four months now :) ), so syslog is the priority at the moment.

    Once the dust clears, we'll start focusing on some of the additional "non-critical" features...

  7. ippei_ukai

    ippei_ukai LI Guru Member

    I have some question/clearlification/requests related to this:

    - As above, what is the priority for non-high-nor-low? Doesn't anyone have actual answer for this than an assumption? It should go on the help at least. (I hope the default is low, then I can think of it simply as a limitation rather than an odd implementation.)

    - How can I specify a custom rule in the Bandwidth Allocation that applies to any Destination IP in WAN? (Sorry if it sounds stupid because of my lack of knowledge...) Neither "*.*.*.*" nor "" works. I was thinking of guaranteeing upload for any HTTP connection (so however P2P traffic gets heavy, we still have good web browsing).

    - Shouldn't it be possible to enable both port based and app based QoS? (Manual/Help doesn't say it's impossible, and UI suggests it's possible. However, enabling one automatically disables the other.)

    - The help for port-based QoS says "The rates can be 128kbps, 256kbps, 512kbps ..." but the available choice actually starts from 512kbps. Nevertheless our connection has 384kbps upload, so we want at least every 128kbps.

    We use this WRV200 (1.0.20) in 5 persons flat. We decided to buy this model because some of us complained the slow web browsing when others use P2P software, and WRV200 seemed the only inexpensive QoS routers on the market. We didn't expect this much difference from the other QoS routers from Linksys. We really hope it gets better very soon with firmware updates.

    Thanks in advance for any assistance,
  8. ippei_ukai

    ippei_ukai LI Guru Member

    Sorry, but one more question:

    - What is the Bandwidth Allocation rules' percentage proportion to? I was assuming that it's to the total WAN upload, but I've just realised people could have much more symmetric network than our 10M-down/384K-up one. I couldn't find any mention of it on the help or manual.

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice