QOS and the Linksys WRtG54 Router?

Posts: 25 · Vonage Forum Junior Joined: Feb 14, 2004 Posts: 25

Thanks to a link one of you posted for me in the Vonage forums, I have read a great deal in other forums from those using the Linksys WRTG54 router and then flashing it with Sveasoft firmware which has a bandwidth management feature. This firmware is QOS type product where you can prioritize data in the WRTG54 router for Vonage so that uploading on the computer does not interfere with Vonage service. The claim is made that this works much better than using the Linksys BEFSR81 router which has QOS built in. Has anyone here personally had any experience with either that could give the benefit of their insight?

Posts: 89 · Vonage Forum Senior Joined: Feb 04, 2004 Posts: 89

That firmware looks really interesting. It has feature I wish Linksys/Cisco had written for the router. Let me know if you find more info, I am trying to find screen shots and more info to determine if it is worth a try.

Posts: 25 · Vonage Forum Junior Joined: Feb 14, 2004 Posts: 25

Thanks. Here is a great link that explains QOS bandwidth management by Sveasoft for Voip use in Linksys WRT54G routers:

http://sveasoft.cyberemail.org/index.php?pagename=SV-Administration-Management-BandwidthManagement

I have seen screen shots and I think they were in the link Xracer13 originally posted in a forum discussion here. The link is shown below. You will need to page through the discussion there to find the pictures, but I am pretty sure there are a few there. I would also bet Sveasoft has better ones.

http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,9112726~mode=flat

Posts: 26 · Vonage Forum Junior Joined: Feb 12, 2004 Posts: 26

My WRT54g should be here tomorrow.... I plan on flashing it after verifying that it works. This will be a solution I can use for more than just Voip.

Posts: 22 · Posted: Tue Mar 09, 2004 5:45 pm Post subject: WRT54G

So has anyone tried to upgrade the firmware on the wrt54g to Sveasoft firmware? How does the bandwidth management feature work?

Posts: 5 · Posted: Tue Mar 09, 2004 10:12 pm Post subject: wrt54g

I did the Sveasoft pre3 upgrade on my wrt54g. The bandwidth management appears to be limited to lowering the priority of either specific IPs or ports on either the WAN or LAN interface. I took the port route and this worked well for most situations. My only problem is that I could never successfully slowdown uploads from my PC to a remote server while using a VPN conection. With the uploads taking up the bandwidth, my voice would be garbled to a caller if I used the phone during the upload. For most users the Sveasoft product should be acceptable.

I have since taken the wrt54g out of service and installed a two NICed PC running m0n0wall in its place. m0n0wall is able to do true traffic shaping. It is more complex to setup, and I have yet to work through all issues, but I can now do voice and VPN uploads without the tin man sneaking in.

Posts: 26 · Vonage Forum Junior Joined: Feb 12, 2004 Posts: 26

care to share your monowall config?

Posts: 5 · Posted: Sat Mar 13, 2004 4:15 pm Post subject:

<?xml version="1.0"?>
<m0n0wall>
<version>1.4</version>
<system>
I "X"d out my info
<hostname>m0n0wall</hostname>
<domain>XXXXXXXXX</domain>
<username>XXXXXX/username>
<password>XXXXXXXXXXXX</password>
<timezone>America/New_York</timezone>
<time-update-interval>300</time-update-interval>
<timeservers>pool.ntp.org</timeservers>
<webgui>
<protocol>http</protocol>
<port/>
</webgui>
<dnsallowoverride/>
<dnsserver>XXXXXXXXXXXXX</dnsserver>
<dnsserver>XXXXXXXXXXXXX</dnsserver>
</system>
<interfaces>
Three NICs. OPT1 ties back to the VT1000. Currently not functional.
<lan>
<if>rl0</if>
<ipaddr>192.168.1.1</ipaddr>
<subnet>24</subnet>
</lan>
<wan>
<if>dc0</if>
<spoofmac/>
<mtu/>
<ipaddr>dhcp</ipaddr>
<dhcphostname/>
</wan>
<opt1>
<if>xl0</if>
<descr>OPT1</descr>
<ipaddr>192.168.102.2</ipaddr>
<subnet>24</subnet>
<bridge/>
<enable/>
</opt1>
</interfaces>
<staticroutes/>
<pppoe/>
<pptp/>
<dyndns>
<type>dyndns</type>
<username/>
<password/>
<host/>
<mx/>
</dyndns>
<dhcpd>
<lan>
<enable/>
<range>
<from>192.168.1.150</from>
<to>192.168.1.199</to>
</range>
</lan>
</dhcpd>
<pptpd>
<mode/>
<redir/>
<localip/>
<remoteip/>
</pptpd>
<dnsmasq>
<enable/>
</dnsmasq>
I have enabled snmp, not necessary for traffic shaper. Using mrtg to graph network traffic
<snmpd>
<syslocation>Home</syslocation>
<syscontact>me</syscontact>
<rocommunity>public</rocommunity>
<enable/>
</snmpd>
<diag>
<ipv6nat>
<ipaddr/>
</ipv6nat>
</diag>
<bridge/>
<syslog>
<reverse/>
<nentries>50</nentries>
<remoteserver/>
</syslog>
These are port forwarders. The port 80 is for my webserver. The others for Voip. I have given the VT1000 a static IP of 1.111
<nat>
<rule>
<protocol>tcp</protocol>
<external-port>80</external-port>
<target>192.168.1.101</target>
<local-port>80</local-port>
<descr>Web Server</descr>
</rule>
<rule>
<protocol>udp</protocol>
<external-port>53</external-port>
<target>192.168.1.111</target>
<local-port>53</local-port>
<descr>VoIP</descr>
</rule>
<rule>
<protocol>udp</protocol>
<external-port>69</external-port>
<target>192.168.1.111</target>
<local-port>69</local-port>
<descr>VoIP</descr>
</rule>
<rule>
<protocol>udp</protocol>
<external-port>123</external-port>
<target>192.168.1.111</target>
<local-port>123</local-port>
<descr>VoIP</descr>
</rule>
<rule>
<protocol>udp</protocol>
<external-port>5060-5061</external-port>
<target>192.168.1.111</target>
<local-port>5060</local-port>
<descr>VoIP</descr>
</rule>
<rule>
<protocol>udp</protocol>
<external-port>10000-20000</external-port>
<target>192.168.1.111</target>
<local-port>10000</local-port>
<descr>VoIP</descr>
</rule>
</nat>
<filter>
<rule>
<type>pass</type>
<interface>wan</interface>
<protocol>tcp</protocol>
<source>
<any/>
</source>
<destination>
This is a firewall rule for the port 80 stuff. Not necessary for VT1000 ports
<address>192.168.1.101</address>
<port>80</port>
</destination>
<descr>Web Server</descr>
</rule>
<rule>
<type>pass</type>
<interface>opt1</interface>
<source>
<network>opt1</network>
</source>
<destination>
<network>lan</network>
</destination>
<descr>OPT1 -> LAN</descr>
</rule>
<rule>
<type>pass</type>
<descr>Default LAN -> any</descr>
<interface>lan</interface>
<source>
<network>lan</network>
</source>
<destination>
<any/>
</destination>
</rule>
</filter>
I have created only one pipe, this to control uploads. Probably should have another for downs. My ISP speed averages about 1500 up 350 down. I took 10% off for margin, thus the 315.
<shaper>
<pipe>
<bandwidth>315</bandwidth>
<descr>UpStream Bandwidth</descr>
</pipe>
Two queues. I tried various weights, currently I am at a 2 to 1 ratio. Some suggested 10 to 1 or 100 to 1. Not necessary!
<queue>
<targetpipe>0</targetpipe>
<weight>2</weight>
<descr>High Priority UpStream</descr>
</queue>
<queue>
<targetpipe>0</targetpipe>
<weight>1</weight>
<descr>Low Priority UpStream</descr>
</queue>
Two rules. The Voip out queue 1 (the high priority), everything else out queue 2. This whole pipe, queue, rule thing probably needs to be extended to pass ACKs and such through the fast lane.
<rule>
<interface>wan</interface>
<source>
<address>192.168.1.111</address>
</source>
<destination>
<any/>
</destination>
<direction>out</direction>
<iplen/>
<tcpflags/>
<descr>VoIP -> Any</descr>
<targetqueue>0</targetqueue>
</rule>
<rule>
<interface>wan</interface>
<source>
<address>192.168.1.111</address>
<not/>
</source>
<destination>
<any/>
</destination>
<direction>out</direction>
<iplen/>
<tcpflags/>
<descr>Not Voip -> Any</descr>
<targetqueue>1</targetqueue>
</rule>
<enable/>
</shaper>
<ipsec/>
<aliases/>
<proxyarp/>
</m0n0wall>

Posts: 26 · Vonage Forum Junior Joined: Feb 12, 2004 Posts: 26

Thanks! You just saved me some time testing. I'll try the 2:1 ratio out. I was going to start with 100:1 and work down... wonder how long that would have taken Sad

My setup is just like yours, one pipe 20% shy of my reported 128k bandwidth at 102k. 2 queues 1 high priority and 1 low. Although I'm now thinking of expanding that now that I see how things are working. Oh I did put the ACKs into the high priority queue.

Thanks for your info...

Posts: 5 · Posted: Sat Mar 13, 2004 5:14 pm Post subject:

With only a 102k pipe you may need to set your weights diifferent to maintain 90k for th Voip. I think the weights resemble ratios, so a 2 to 1 will allow 2 packets up its queue for every 1 packet up the slow queue. I think, I think, I think.... but perhaps not.....