From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.15.19]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "mout.gmx.net", Issuer "TeleSec ServerPass DE-1" (verified OK)) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1251A21F1EA for ; Sun, 14 Sep 2014 09:28:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hms-beagle.home.lan ([93.194.226.142]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx002) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0McVKy-1XkjXz0Ivg-00Hbik; Sun, 14 Sep 2014 18:28:31 +0200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) From: Sebastian Moeller In-Reply-To: Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2014 18:28:30 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: To: =?windows-1252?Q?Dave_T=E4ht?= X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:n4h4H3QhZvsQBmbfvyfRd4EScyygCgPj6BQDe/RgB15DcQ4YqhW WGHn3UGPAVp5xfMtQSDl3PsgFXTwviRzXuyZSP1PnRZ7x0DzAFsA8q5cDT0fdznI91EthdY FzeghtMbt/t08TyZjQsfP4N04P8JUKR9aChYGBAk54mXGIeSBG9UG6fNo5mo9MtexjsPdt0 yH9jdHeq/DqZN2ZSzKoNw== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1; Cc: Richard O , cerowrt-devel Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] Possible Bug(s) in Cero 3.10.50-1 X-BeenThere: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Development issues regarding the cerowrt test router project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2014 16:29:02 -0000 Hi Dave, hi List, On Sep 14, 2014, at 12:45 , Dave Taht 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 ;) = ) >=20 > 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) >=20 > 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... >=20 > 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=85 (in Germany the incumbent plans to only offer VDSL2 to = vectoring capable modems, other modems will fall back to ADSL2+) Best Regards Sebastian >=20 > On Sep 13, 2014 11:07 AM, "Richard" 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > I think that's about it. >=20 >=20 > 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? >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > Hope this helps! > =97Regards, Richard >=20 > _______________________________________________ > 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