Hi Dave, hi List,
On Sep 14, 2014, at 12:45 , Dave Taht <[email protected]> wrote:
> One of the features of the work going on in the ubnt beta forums was the
> discovery that you can create named ifb interfaces. So we could switch sqm to
> a 1 to 1 mapping of ge00-ifb, se00-ifb, etc. and thus have an easier time
> tearing them down.
Might be a solution, let m think about it (wist case IFB-SQM_ge00 should
be baroque enough to not be accidentally used by other people ;) )
>
> I figure that QoS chain needs to be applied to the pppoe interface not the
> ge00 interface?
Probably, but I think the pppoe interface does not appear in the SQM
interface name drop down box (I have not managed to make pppoe from cerowrt
work at all so I never could test this)
>
> I generally have encouraged folk to always reinstall from scratch. Now that
> we are maturing and getting stabler, in place upgrades are becoming more
> interesting...
>
> I generally have more faith in cero's fire walling and nat handling than most
> third party equipment. So bridging is often better. But what I'd like most to
> happen for dsl is finding a good openwrt compatible dsl/wifi modem and have
> that as something to recommend to debloat ers on that tech.
Oh, I am all for it. It seems there is a open source driver for some of
the lantiq del chips that should support the ADSLs (1, 2, 2+) and VDSL2 so that
might be a decent starting point. Alas, in VDSL2-land currently there is a big
push to enable vectoring (central office side crosstalk elimination by
modifying the signals that they have the desired waveform after cross-talk has
happened, nifty technology) and I am not sure whether the lantiq-chips
supported by open source drivers support that… (in Germany the incumbent plans
to only offer VDSL2 to vectoring capable modems, other modems will fall back to
ADSL2+)
Best Regards
Sebastian
>
> On Sep 13, 2014 11:07 AM, "Richard" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi, all. End user here. Just thought I'd post a few possible bugs I've run
> into since updating to 3.10.50-1. I'm not exactly sure if these have been
> reported or are intentional, but I figured it couldn't hurt to post them
> anyway.
>
> 1) When using PPPoE on the outbound interface, traffic skips classification
> MARKS set by iptables in the QOS_MARK_ge00 chain entirely. This is whilst
> using simple.qos. Everything is placed in the 1:12 class in HTB in both
> ingress and egress regardless of rules set. This was tried using 3.10.34-4
> and then a fresh install of 3.10.50-1.
>
> 2) In 3.10.50-1, whilst running multiple Intermediate Functional Blocks,
> restarting SQM often has a chance to not close IFBs after the first IFB. i.e
> Anything after ifb0 has a chance to not close. Cero then creates a new
> Block(s) after the ones that haven't closed as it believes they are still in
> use. Doing this enough eventually fills up all available Blocks and then
> ingress shaping fails to start.
>
> Workaround for me has been to SSH in, stop SQM completely, and then start it
> back up again whenever I change settings as that ensures any lingering IFBs
> are closed down.
>
>
> Unfortunately, I foolishly forgot to keep any logs using cerostats.sh and no
> longer have a modem to test PPPoE on; the one I had couldn't hold the DSL
> line for very long and was subsequently returned. I also ran into something
> which I thought was Bug #442 after updating to 3.10.50-1. I had moved from
> 3.10.34-4 using the sysupgrade image.
>
> The router seemed to lock up twice within the first 15mins after boot and
> again after reboot. Only the 2.4Ghz network went nuts while 5Ghz remained
> fine. Everything on the 2.4Ghz network was still connected, yet nothing on
> 2.4 could get through - both to the internet and to the router itself. I
> then decided to do a clean install and haven't run into it since. This is
> something which has happened to me before on an earlier release and I only
> ever seem to run into this bug whenever I use a sysupgrade image, or restore
> my settings from an archive.
>
> Something I've noticed is that #442 (or something similar) never seems
> happen if I do a clean install and rewrite my settings from scratch...
> Just a thought.
>
> I think that's about it.
>
>
> And if anyone's willing to answer this, I know this isn't exactly the place
> ask this, but, aside from having Cero handle external ICMPs requests, is
> there any inherent performance/security/bufferbloat benefits from having
> Cero handle my external ip over a gateway --> router combo?
>
> Right now, my setup consist of a gateway and I'm unable to put it in bridge
> mode. The gateway does NAT, has SPI disabled, and has a static route and DMZ
> defined towards Cero. Cero is connected to the end of it with Masquerading
> disabled and the firewall still up. Every device we have runs through Cero.
>
> I'd like to know anything at all before I decide to go looking for another
> dedicated modem, or if I should even bother to go looking in the first place.
>
> Hope this helps!
> —Regards, Richard
>
> _______________________________________________
> Cerowrt-devel mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel
> _______________________________________________
> Cerowrt-devel mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel
_______________________________________________
Cerowrt-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel
