Setting up QOS with WRT54G & RT31P2

Posts: 72 · Full Forum Member Joined: Mar 08, 2005 Posts: 72

Have following config- cable modem>WRT54G>RT31P2. Have port 2 of WRT54G cabled to RT31P2 Internet port. What QOS should I set on port 2 of WRT54G? WRT is running hyperwrt 3rd party firmware. Should I set upstream bandwidth to 256? ethernet port priority is set to HIGH, flow control is set to ENABLE, Incoming rate limit is DISABLED. RT31P2 has voice QOS enabled and set to 256kbs.

Is there anything else I need to do?

Posts: 244 · Posted: Wed Apr 06, 2005 11:23 pm Post subject:

Here is how mine is set up.

http://home.mchsi.com/~eseckinger/wsb/html/view.cgi-photo.html--SiteID-1218864.html

Posts: 52 · Full Forum Member Joined: Jun 21, 2004 Posts: 52

I agreee with AspecTec

I use Sveasoft Ajchemy rc6, and it is basically the same.

I have found that IP (netmask) based QoS instead of mac,port or service based is more reliable though.

Just my 2 cents.

Posts: 6 · New Forum Member Joined: Mar 30, 2005 Posts: 6

sdstuckey wrote:

I agreee with AspecTec

I use Sveasoft Ajchemy rc6, and it is basically the same.

I have found that IP (netmask) based QoS instead of mac,port or service based is more reliable though.

Just my 2 cents.

I've tried alchemy rc6 and pre7 with netmask priority and it seems that my speeds drop from 6mbits ot 5 when using sveasoft firmware and thats when no one is using the phone. any suggestions?

Posts: 52 · Full Forum Member Joined: Jun 21, 2004 Posts: 52

Yes. WIth almost any consumer QoS solution there will be a degradation in overall bandwidth. Even on some high-end QoS solutions one will experience 5-10% loss. Remember "Quality of Service" is not "Quantity of Service"

The software methods (instead of hardware based solutions) used to prioritize/de-prioritize packet timing cause this. EVery packet is analyzed to compare its source, hence even when not in use the lower priority port/netmask/MAC is degraded to its lower priority.

It is a scenario where the user has to decide:

Is it worth the loss of overall bandwidth during non-priority usages to assure a stable and enhanced priority when needed on the assigned ports ?

or

Would I rather use all of my bandwidth and suffer the losses when a device cannot allocate enough time/bandwidth when needed without degrading it's need?

or

Can I afford a hardware-based, managed QoS to assure that a minimal loss of overall bandwidth will occur while still prioritizing the needed traffic only when it is in use.

In my case, I lose about 1000k down and 90k up with QoS enabled, (20% & 18% loss - about $8.00/month on my $40 ISP) and that $8.00 gives me 100% rock solid Vonage service. This $8.00 brings my Vonage bill to bill to around $34.00. My Verizon bill was around $72.00 a month. (which is still a 47% savings).

One could mathematically argue that my savings is thus only 9.4% (20% of 47%) but I do not follow that logic as one is loss of bandwidth and the other is loss of savings & gain of reliabilty... apples and oranges & bananas.

Now I gave my 7 cents.

Posts: 244 · Posted: Sat Apr 09, 2005 2:02 pm Post subject:

Ive compared my bandwidth several times both on my WRT running Sveasoft firmware and running just straight to a nic on my PC.

THey are always the same.

Posts: 6 · New Forum Member Joined: Mar 30, 2005 Posts: 6

Well according to sveasoft, the bandwidth should not decrease if I wasnt using the phone. QOS will go into affect when Im using the phone and qos is doing its job by prioritizing bandwidth. And I agree with that and dont mind the bandwidth drop but when I do a speed test while no one is on the phone I would think the bandwidth would be at its fullest. I do achieve this with the stock firmware and others but not with sveasofts. Cant figure it.