[Cerowrt-devel] Possible Bug(s) in Cero 3.10.50-1

Sebastian Moeller moeller0 at gmx.de
Sun Sep 14 12:28:30 EDT 2014

Hi Dave, hi List,

On Sep 14, 2014, at 12:45 , Dave Taht <dave.taht at gmail.com> 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

> On Sep 13, 2014 11:07 AM, "Richard" <rocon46 at hotmail.com> 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
> Cerowrt-devel at lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel
> _______________________________________________
> Cerowrt-devel mailing list
> Cerowrt-devel at lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel

More information about the Cerowrt-devel mailing list