[Cerowrt-devel] Upper routing throughput limit

[Cerowrt-devel] Upper routing throughput limit

[William Katsak]

Hello,

Does anyone have a good sense of the most throughput our 3800s with Cero 
can push through the WAN interface? Are we good to 100 mbps? 1gbps?

Thanks,
Bill Katsak

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] Upper routing throughput limit

[Aaron Wood]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 881 bytes --]

It depends on the aqm rules that are configured.  In the base setup, it
struggles at 50Mbps.  But that can be increased by switching from the
simple.qos script to simplest.qos (I'm not sure where the limit is with the
simplest.qos script.

I know that Dave Taht has been working with some other platforms.  The
Ubiquity EdgeRouter Lite may be able to hit 100Mbps, but it doesn't run
CeroWRT itself, it just supports similar configuration.

-Aaron


On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 7:49 AM, William Katsak <wkatsak@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> Does anyone have a good sense of the most throughput our 3800s with Cero
> can push through the WAN interface? Are we good to 100 mbps? 1gbps?
>
> Thanks,
> Bill Katsak
> _______________________________________________
> Cerowrt-devel mailing list
> Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1446 bytes --]

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] Upper routing throughput limit

[William Katsak]

This is what I was afraid of. I'm on an older firmware still, so I will 
upgrade and do some testing (have to find time when family doesn't need 
Internet :) ).

I was considering the possibility of using PfSense on an x86 box as my 
main router/firewall for better throughput, and hanging Cero off of that 
for wifi. Anyone doing something similar? If so, how do you organize the 
subnets?

-Bill


On 07/10/2014 11:01 AM, Aaron Wood wrote:
> It depends on the aqm rules that are configured.  In the base setup, it
> struggles at 50Mbps.  But that can be increased by switching from the
> simple.qos script to simplest.qos (I'm not sure where the limit is with
> the simplest.qos script.
>
> I know that Dave Taht has been working with some other platforms.  The
> Ubiquity EdgeRouter Lite may be able to hit 100Mbps, but it doesn't run
> CeroWRT itself, it just supports similar configuration.
>
> -Aaron
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 7:49 AM, William Katsak <wkatsak@gmail.com
> <mailto:wkatsak@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     Hello,
>
>     Does anyone have a good sense of the most throughput our 3800s with
>     Cero can push through the WAN interface? Are we good to 100 mbps? 1gbps?
>
>     Thanks,
>     Bill Katsak
>     _________________________________________________
>     Cerowrt-devel mailing list
>     Cerowrt-devel@lists.__bufferbloat.net
>     <mailto:Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>     https://lists.bufferbloat.net/__listinfo/cerowrt-devel
>     <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel>
>
>

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] Upper routing throughput limit

[Toke Høiland-Jørgensen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2313 bytes --]

William Katsak <wkatsak@gmail.com> writes:

> I was considering the possibility of using PfSense on an x86 box as my
> main router/firewall for better throughput, and hanging Cero off of
> that for wifi. Anyone doing something similar? If so, how do you
> organize the subnets?

I have a similar setup with a dual-ethernet x86 box acting as router
for my 100/100 Mbps connection. The plan was originally to stick a
minipci wifi card in there to also act as access point, but for now I've
settled on using a cerowrt box as a relatively dumb wifi box. The setup
is something like this

+------------+           +----------+           +------------+
|            |           |          |           |            |
|  Internet  +-----------+  Router  +-----------+  WNDR3800  |
|            |           |          |           |            |
+------------+           +----------+           +------------+

The router downstream ethernet port is plugged into the wan port on the
WNDR3800 and I've configured three 802.1Q VLANs on the link between the
router and the cerowrt box, which are bridged to the LAN switch, the
private wifi interfaces and the guest wifi interfaces respectively. This
allows me to run dnsmasq etc on the router, and have the cerowrt box
simply provide wifi connectivity, but without bridging the wifi directly
to the ethernet LAN. I got lazy and only did one VLAN for each type of
wifi, rather than having one per frequency as in stock cerowrt, but see
no reason why adding additional VLANs for each frequency should pose any
problems.

The only daemons running on the cerowrt box are dropbear, radsecproxy
(for 802.11i authentication on the private wifi), ntpd, netifd and
hostapd. The router box runs a stock Arch Linux installation, with
dnsmasq serving up a /27 and a /64 (from he.net) on each of the virtual
vlan interfaces, most of the network setup managed through
systemd-networkd, and a couple of scripts to set up the he.net tunnel
and an SQM-derived shaper, as well as a manual firewall setup. The
router box also runs BIND as a local resolver, a TOR node, minidlna and
various other daemons.

The VLAN setup on the cerowrt box took a couple of attempts to get
right, but now that it is running it seems to work well. I'll be happy
to share the config if you're interested. :)

-Toke

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 472 bytes --]

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] Upper routing throughput limit

[William Katsak]

Sorry to wake this thread up again. It does indeed seem that the 3800 is 
having trouble routing at my line speed.

I was considering doing a pfSense box, but it doesn't seem that 
Bufferbloat has been much of a consideration yet over there. There is a 
version of Codel, but the QoS would have to be set up manually.

I've Googled this Ubiquiti Edgerouter Lite, and I am intrigued. I don't 
see many details on Ubiquiti's site about the QoS though. Is this device 
as good at beating bloat as Cero? Would mating one of these with a 3800 
(for Wifi only) be a good bet?

Thanks,
-Bill


On 07/10/2014 11:01 AM, Aaron Wood wrote:
> It depends on the aqm rules that are configured.  In the base setup, it
> struggles at 50Mbps.  But that can be increased by switching from the
> simple.qos script to simplest.qos (I'm not sure where the limit is with
> the simplest.qos script.
>
> I know that Dave Taht has been working with some other platforms.  The
> Ubiquity EdgeRouter Lite may be able to hit 100Mbps, but it doesn't run
> CeroWRT itself, it just supports similar configuration.
>
> -Aaron
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 7:49 AM, William Katsak <wkatsak@gmail.com
> <mailto:wkatsak@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     Hello,
>
>     Does anyone have a good sense of the most throughput our 3800s with
>     Cero can push through the WAN interface? Are we good to 100 mbps? 1gbps?
>
>     Thanks,
>     Bill Katsak
>     _________________________________________________
>     Cerowrt-devel mailing list
>     Cerowrt-devel@lists.__bufferbloat.net
>     <mailto:Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>     https://lists.bufferbloat.net/__listinfo/cerowrt-devel
>     <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel>
>
>

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] Upper routing throughput limit

[David Lang]

When link speeds get high enough, do we still need to shape the download for 
home users? at some point you stop saturating the line.

the 3800 can easily handle 100mb if it's not trying to shape the traffic, is it 
worth seeing if there's any way to squeeze that shaping overhead down?

David Lang

On Wed, 6 Aug 2014, William Katsak wrote:

> Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2014 15:35:57 -0400
> From: William Katsak <wkatsak@gmail.com>
> To: "cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net"
>     <cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net>
> Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] Upper routing throughput limit
> 
> Sorry to wake this thread up again. It does indeed seem that the 3800 is 
> having trouble routing at my line speed.
>
> I was considering doing a pfSense box, but it doesn't seem that Bufferbloat 
> has been much of a consideration yet over there. There is a version of Codel, 
> but the QoS would have to be set up manually.
>
> I've Googled this Ubiquiti Edgerouter Lite, and I am intrigued. I don't see 
> many details on Ubiquiti's site about the QoS though. Is this device as good 
> at beating bloat as Cero? Would mating one of these with a 3800 (for Wifi 
> only) be a good bet?
>
> Thanks,
> -Bill
>
>
> On 07/10/2014 11:01 AM, Aaron Wood wrote:
>> It depends on the aqm rules that are configured.  In the base setup, it
>> struggles at 50Mbps.  But that can be increased by switching from the
>> simple.qos script to simplest.qos (I'm not sure where the limit is with
>> the simplest.qos script.
>> 
>> I know that Dave Taht has been working with some other platforms.  The
>> Ubiquity EdgeRouter Lite may be able to hit 100Mbps, but it doesn't run
>> CeroWRT itself, it just supports similar configuration.
>> 
>> -Aaron
>> 
>> 
>> On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 7:49 AM, William Katsak <wkatsak@gmail.com
>> <mailto:wkatsak@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>     Hello,
>>
>>     Does anyone have a good sense of the most throughput our 3800s with
>>     Cero can push through the WAN interface? Are we good to 100 mbps? 
>> 1gbps?
>>
>>     Thanks,
>>     Bill Katsak
>>     _________________________________________________
>>     Cerowrt-devel mailing list
>>     Cerowrt-devel@lists.__bufferbloat.net
>>     <mailto:Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>     https://lists.bufferbloat.net/__listinfo/cerowrt-devel
>>     <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel>
>> 
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> Cerowrt-devel mailing list
> Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel
>

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] Upper routing throughput limit

[Dave Taht]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3108 bytes --]

On Aug 6, 2014 4:06 PM, "David Lang" <david@lang.hm> wrote:
>
> When link speeds get high enough, do we still need to shape the download
for home users? at some point you stop saturating the line.
>
> the 3800 can easily handle 100mb if it's not trying to shape the traffic,
is it worth seeing if there's any way to squeeze that shaping overhead down?

In other words if you set the download to 0 in sqm, that disables ingress
shaping completely... and cero can handle the 35mbit upload without raising
too much sweat

I have a report of a 250 mbit download cable modem exhibiting 300ms of
latency. That would be both sad and good to confirm...

>
> David Lang
>
> On Wed, 6 Aug 2014, William Katsak wrote:
>
>> Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2014 15:35:57 -0400
>> From: William Katsak <wkatsak@gmail.com>
>> To: "cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net"
>>     <cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>> Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] Upper routing throughput limit
>>
>>
>> Sorry to wake this thread up again. It does indeed seem that the 3800 is
having trouble routing at my line speed.
>>
>> I was considering doing a pfSense box, but it doesn't seem that
Bufferbloat has been much of a consideration yet over there. There is a
version of Codel, but the QoS would have to be set up manually.
>>
>> I've Googled this Ubiquiti Edgerouter Lite, and I am intrigued. I don't
see many details on Ubiquiti's site about the QoS though. Is this device as
good at beating bloat as Cero? Would mating one of these with a 3800 (for
Wifi only) be a good bet?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> -Bill
>>
>>
>> On 07/10/2014 11:01 AM, Aaron Wood wrote:
>>>
>>> It depends on the aqm rules that are configured.  In the base setup, it
>>> struggles at 50Mbps.  But that can be increased by switching from the
>>> simple.qos script to simplest.qos (I'm not sure where the limit is with
>>> the simplest.qos script.
>>>
>>> I know that Dave Taht has been working with some other platforms.  The
>>> Ubiquity EdgeRouter Lite may be able to hit 100Mbps, but it doesn't run
>>> CeroWRT itself, it just supports similar configuration.
>>>
>>> -Aaron
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 7:49 AM, William Katsak <wkatsak@gmail.com
>>> <mailto:wkatsak@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>     Hello,
>>>
>>>     Does anyone have a good sense of the most throughput our 3800s with
>>>     Cero can push through the WAN interface? Are we good to 100 mbps?
1gbps?
>>>
>>>     Thanks,
>>>     Bill Katsak
>>>     _________________________________________________
>>>     Cerowrt-devel mailing list
>>>     Cerowrt-devel@lists.__bufferbloat.net
>>>     <mailto:Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>     https://lists.bufferbloat.net/__listinfo/cerowrt-devel
>>>     <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel>
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Cerowrt-devel mailing list
>> Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net
>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Cerowrt-devel mailing list
> Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4846 bytes --]

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] Upper routing throughput limit

[Toke Høiland-Jørgensen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2443 bytes --]

William Katsak <wkatsak@gmail.com> writes:

> Somehow I didn’t see this email the last time I posted about this. I
> was wondering too about how to nicely do the VLANs for the wifi. I
> wouldn’t mind checking out your config (this will be relevant on the
> Cero wide no matter what I do for the main router).

Right, well I just re-did the setup from a vanilla cerowrt image, so
here goes:

For the secondary access point, I use the wan port as an 'uplink' port
that trunks the vlans for each of the wireless networks (and one for the
wired as well). Thus, vlan1 is the wired lan, vlan2 is the first
'internal' network (sw00), vlan3 is sw10, vlan4 is gw00 and vlan5 is
gw10. For a vanilla cerowrt box, I shut off all daemons apart from
dropbear (for ssh access) and the network config. This includes dnsmasq
(DHCP is assumed to be on the upstream server). Going through init
scripts to `/etc/init.d/foo stop && /etc/init.d/foo disable` until
everything is shut off should do it.

After that, it's really only a few modifications to /etc/config/network
that is needed to achieve this:

1. Get rid of the config for the wan interface completely (the 'config
   interface ge00' block and the ipv6 equivalent).

2. For the se00 interface, make sure these lines are present:
        option 'ifname' 'se00 ge00.1'
        option 'type' 'bridge'
   replacing any lines with the same option names. The openwrt network
   setup automatically configures VLANs from the .N syntax.

3. Similarly, for the wireless interfaces change 'type' from 'none' to
   'bridge' and add an 'option ifname ge00.N' line, with N being the
   vlan number as listed above.

4. Configure the IP addresses of each interface to correspond to the
   upstream router setup. I just add 1 to each IP and configure the DHCP
   server to start at (GW ip)+2 rather than (GW ip)+1.

5. Plug in the cerowrt lan port to the upstream router, and make sure
   that has the appropriate 5 VLANs configured with a DHCP server
   running on each, etc.


I've used this setup for replacing the WNDR box with a beefier device
for high-speed routing, as well as for adding a second WNDR for extended
wifi range (doing that this way rather than meshing allows clients to
roam while keeping their IP and DHCP lease, and gets me a single DNS
namespace since there's only one dnsmasq instance).

Hope this explanation makes sense. :)

-Toke

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 472 bytes --]