If you can ssh into the router and it is running linux: Max number: cat /proc/sys/net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_conntrack_max
Current: wc -l /proc/net/ip_conntrack -Hal On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 2:40 PM, Micah Miller via Af <[email protected]> wrote: > I think Mikrotik router connection table entries vary by router. Our > edge router can hold 524,288 entries, while my home router can hold > 218080 > > On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 8:14 PM, That One Guy via Af <[email protected]> wrote: > > if they own this router and this is what you suspect the issue is YOU > have > > no responsibility until THEY have contacted the vendor of their router > for > > support. > > The EBR 2310 was nice because it had a log message that flat out said > unable > > to establish new connections. If you are prepared to own their problem, > then > > log into their router to see if there is a similar log. > > we havent seen this problem since we went to offering a free airrouter, > 30 > > bucks and you dont have to deal with them anymore, if theyre exceeding > the > > capability of that then your TOS should have verbage regarding disruptive > > network activities, which exceeding that capability has a good potential > to > > be disruptive > > > > On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 7:48 PM, Ken Hohhof via Af <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>> Also, there is an option in the 13.2 (build 34) firmware that allows > you > >> > >> to bump up the NAT table to 8096 (not to mention that you can now watch > >> it via SNMP). > >> > >> I'm not doing NAT in the SM. > >> > >> > >> -----Original Message----- From: Bill Prince via Af > >> Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 7:45 PM > >> To: [email protected] > >> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] home router max simultaneous connections > >> > >> > >> A Mikrotik will hold many, many thousands of connections. Don't know > >> what the limit is, but I have seen tens of thousands of connections in > >> the connections list. > >> > >> Also, there is an option in the 13.2 (build 34) firmware that allows you > >> to bump up the NAT table to 8096 (not to mention that you can now watch > >> it via SNMP). > >> > >> bp > >> > >> On 10/22/2014 5:29 PM, Ken Hohhof via Af wrote: > >>> > >>> I have a complaining customer who I’m becoming convinced is exceeding > the > >>> NAT connection table in their router. Can I trust the numbers here: > >>> > >>> > http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/lanwan/router-charts/bar/77-max-simul-conn > >>> > >>> This would indicate a mid-range route like a typical N600 probably > >>> supports around 4,000 connections. I'm not sure why this is, if you > look at > >>> the RAM specs for any of these routers, it doesn't seem like a > technical > >>> limitation, it's almost like they are artificially limiting the > connections > >>> by price for marketing reasons. But I think this customer has > something > >>> like a Netgear WNDR3400. > >>> > >>> Anyway, am I barking up the wrong tree, or is this a possible or even > >>> fairly common situation? I don't see any evidence this customer is > doing > >>> Torrents, but there seem to be a lot of TCP connections, and a lot of > apps > >>> that seem to have 4-10 or more connections open. Including Pandora, > not > >>> sure why Pandora would need so many connections. > >>> > >>> Please note, the SM is bridged, I am not doing NAT in the SM. > >>> > >>> Is there any way to prove this other than give them a Mikrotik? > >>> > >>> And on a Mikrotik, can I tweak the UDP/TCP timeouts to flush out idle > >>> connections faster? Seems like even with infinite memory, there are > only > >>> 65K possible ports for NAT/PAT and you would run into port exhaustion. > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember that the > > parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if you > can't > > get them together again, there must be a reason. By all means, do not > use a > > hammer. -- IBM maintenance manual, 1925 > > > > -- > Micah Miller > Network/Server Administrator > Network Business Systems, Inc. > Phone: 309-944-8823 > -- Harold Bledsoe
