| Best Open Firmware For VOIP QOS Have a Netgear WNR3500 formerly from SamKnows. Just gave it an "Intermediate Flash" to a "mini" DD-WRT with help from another thread. Now ready to give it a "final" firmware, e.g. DD-WRT, Tomato. I'm real new to the whole "open firmware" thing.
What is the best firmware/version for me to use, keeping in mind that my priority is QOS with VOIP. |
|
 TrevIP Telephony GuruPremium
join:2009-06-29
Victoria, BC
kudos:3 | Having tried both dd-wrt and Tomato in recent history, I've decided to prefer Tomato as the interface is much more responsive and the versioning is incredibly easier to make sense of.
--
Wondering what I do? Find out at »www.digitalcon.ca |
|
| Sorry, I'm a little new at this. Just went to the polarcloud webpage. Netgear WNR3500 is not listed as supported for Tomato? |
|
|
|
Mangowww.toao.net
join:2008-12-25
Alberta
kudos:8 Reviews:
 ·voip.ms
·Anveo
 ·Shaw
·FreePhoneLine
 ·TELUS
·Callcentric
·callwithus
·LINGO
| reply to lstevens
I use and am very happy with Tomato, though I haven't used anything else so my recommendation may not be as useful as it could be.
Tomato's QoS is very effective, but is not a perfect solution. For example, there is no way to use lots of inbound traffic when VoIP is not in use, and throttle inbound traffic when it is. You have to permanently rate limit your inbound traffic and always leave room for VoIP, even when you're not using it.
Outbound traffic does not have such a limitation.
That said, it does allow for POTS-quality VoIP and provides a very high WAF, so I haven't looked any further.
m. 
--
Recommended ATA Settings | e164 - make your DID accessible via SIPBroker! |
|
Mangowww.toao.net
join:2008-12-25
Alberta
kudos:8 | reply to lstevens
Perhaps »tomatousb.org/doc:build-types would be compatible with your router. |
|
| reply to lstevens
I've used both Tomato and DD-WRT. Tomato has far better QOS (for outbound). Neither does true in-bound QOS.
I'm currently using Toastman's latest stable release - one heck of a firmware. The Polarcloud site has 1.28 but hasn't been updated in over a year. Maybe two.
The Wikipedia article has a nice matrix of active Tomato projects:
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomato_%28firmware%29
If you decide to use it, ensure you set UDP Unreplied Timeout to 10 and UDP Assured Timeout to 300. This is to maintain VOIP registrations. |
|
neftv
join:2000-10-01
Broomall, PA Reviews:
·SIP Global Phone
·QuantumVoice
 ·Verizon FiOS
| said by ctaranto:If you decide to use it, ensure you set UDP Unreplied Timeout to 10 and UDP Assured Timeout to 300. This is to maintain VOIP registrations.
Are you sure about the UDP assured timeout of 300? I think in the tomato forums someone mentioned how much of a mess VOIP is with NAT and the opinion was that 180 is better. I just wonder what to go with?
I too am using Tomato Firmware v1.28.7628 -Toastman ND USB Std on my Asus WL-520GU. So reliable and router is just a workhorse makes me want to just buy another to have as a true back up. |
|
TrevIP Telephony GuruPremium
join:2009-06-29
Victoria, BC
kudos:3 | said by neftv:said by ctaranto:If you decide to use it, ensure you set UDP Unreplied Timeout to 10 and UDP Assured Timeout to 300. This is to maintain VOIP registrations.
Are you sure about the UDP assured timeout of 300? I think in the tomato forums someone mentioned how much of a mess VOIP is with NAT and the opinion was that 180 is better. I just wonder what to go with? Basically, you want this to be true:
SIP Registration Retry Interval > UDP Unreplied Timeout
and
SIP Keep Alive Interval or SIP Registration Period (whichever is less) < UDP Assured Timeout
--
Wondering what I do? Find out at »www.digitalcon.ca |
|
| reply to lstevens
I've used these settings, which were recommended back in 2009 (»[Equipment] Tomato with VOIP warning), for over 2 years and have no issues with registrations.
If 180 works for you, it's a better value to use. I've stuck with 300 and don't have issues so I'm not going to touch it.
I use an Asus RT-N16 today, but used a Linksys WRT54GL for years previously. |
|
| reply to ctaranto
said by ctaranto:I'm currently using Toastman's latest stable release - one heck of a firmware. The Polarcloud site has 1.28 but hasn't been updated in over a year. Maybe two. Do you know if he has one that will work on a Netgear WNR3500v2/U/L? |
|
| said by lstevens:Do you know if he has one that will work on a Netgear WNR3500v2/U/L?
It appears it does.
»tomatousb.org/doc:build-types
According to the chart, you need to use the R2/K26/NoUSB-Mini version.
If interested, I highly recommend the Asus RT-N16. It's blazing fast and supports the full version of Tomato. |
|
2 edits | said by ctaranto:said by lstevens:Do you know if he has one that will work on a Netgear WNR3500v2/U/L?
It appears it does. » tomatousb.org/doc:build-typesAccording to the chart, you need to use the R2/K26/NoUSB-Mini version. If interested, I highly recommend the Asus RT-N16. It's blazing fast and supports the full version of Tomato. ctaranto, or anyone else good with this Tomato stuff (I'm a real newbie in this area): These Netgear Routers are really confusing about their Model #'s. The one I have says WNR3500v2/U/L on the Netgear Status Screen, WNR3500/L on the box, and WNR3500/U-WNR3500/L on the router itself! That being said, I am successfully running THIS version:
tomato-K26USB-1.28.9054MIPSR2-beta-Ext
I believe this is a full version. Since I'm running the full version, would this indicate that I can run the full version of Toastman? If so, which Toastman is the "equivalent to the one I'm running now? And I assume I can go directly from the one I have now to the Toastman?
Thanks! |
|
| I suggest asking that in the Toastman forum. I have no idea. |
|
| Done! Thanks for your previous help and suggestions! |
|
 wcweaverPremium
join:2002-02-22
Fort Myers, FL
·voip.ms
·Future Nine Corp..
·Comcast
·Embarq Now Centu..
| reply to Mango
said by Mango:I use and am very happy with Tomato, though I haven't used anything else so my recommendation may not be as useful as it could be.
Tomato's QoS is very effective, but is not a perfect solution. For example, there is no way to use lots of inbound traffic when VoIP is not in use, and throttle inbound traffic when it is. You have to permanently rate limit your inbound traffic and always leave room for VoIP, even when you're not using it.
Outbound traffic does not have such a limitation.
That said, it does allow for POTS-quality VoIP and provides a very high WAF, so I haven't looked any further.
m.
Hi Mango,
I have Tomato installed on my Linksys WRT54GL. When I have QOS turned on it cuts my download and upload speeds in half. 26/13 down 6/3 up.
I don't know much about QOS. Maybe I need different settings in QOS. The current settings for QOS are the Tomato defaults.
Strange thing. I had turned QOS off and when i just now went into the router, I found QOS turned on somehow. I did not turn it back on?
Any Ideas appreciated to improve QOS and the speed related problems. My wife is complaining about voice quality. I am in the proces of porting to Anveo, so I currently get inbound through Voip.ms and use Anveo for out bound calls.
I have the Gigaset 610 system.
Thanks
Bill |
|
| You can have a read through this as a starting point:
»mrmatt57.org/qos-for-soho-voip-s···irmware/ |
|
| reply to wcweaver
I'm running Tomato. I have QOS running with fairly vanilla settings. I also have Incoming Limit set to about 66% of my bandwith, but my download speed has NOT been affected. According to TomatoUSB, it SHOULD NOT be:
"Please note that the "Maximum" figure that we set in the incoming category is NOT in itself a limit. There is no overall limit in Tomato. This figure is just used to calculate the percentages of the individual classes. "
See this article. It's also a good read on QOS.
»tomatousb.org/tut:using-tomato-s-qos-system |
|
 christcorpPremium
join:2001-05-21
Cheyenne, WY
kudos:1 | I found that once I broke past a certain amount of bandwidth; both up and down; (Different for each user depending on what you use it for); QOS was a waste of time and resources. I actually got/get better call quality by turning QOS OFF on my router. I've used them all. But once I got past about 4mb down and 2mb up, QOS was simply no longer necessary. Again; each user is different. My cable company now provides 30mb down and 5mb up. I don't even try to use QOS. (Which only works for OUTGOING packets anyway). Once you have enough bandwidth, you can easily multitask bandwidth.
Now; if you're running a high customer server or transferring data continuously at full speed, then maybe QOS is needed. But for 90%+ of customers, with enough bandwidth, QOS isn't needed. I've had internet since the 300 baud modem days. I've had the 256kb DSL and cable. I've had the 1.5mb/896kb DSL and worked through the 1mb/512k cable. Once I got past the 4mb/1-2mb bandwidth, I no longer needed QOS. And the quality is so much better now not having the router trying to rearrange outgoing packets to give one packet priority. |
|
wcweaverPremium
join:2002-02-22
Fort Myers, FL Reviews:
·voip.ms
·Future Nine Corp..
·Comcast
·Embarq Now Centu..
| said by christcorp:I found that once I broke past a certain amount of bandwidth; both up and down; (Different for each user depending on what you use it for); QOS was a waste of time and resources. I actually got/get better call quality by turning QOS OFF on my router. I've used them all. But once I got past about 4mb down and 2mb up, QOS was simply no longer necessary. Again; each user is different. My cable company now provides 30mb down and 5mb up. I don't even try to use QOS. (Which only works for OUTGOING packets anyway). Once you have enough bandwidth, you can easily multitask bandwidth.
Now; if you're running a high customer server or transferring data continuously at full speed, then maybe QOS is needed. But for 90%+ of customers, with enough bandwidth, QOS isn't needed. I've had internet since the 300 baud modem days. I've had the 256kb DSL and cable. I've had the 1.5mb/896kb DSL and worked through the 1mb/512k cable. Once I got past the 4mb/1-2mb bandwidth, I no longer needed QOS. And the quality is so much better now not having the router trying to rearrange outgoing packets to give one packet priority.
Thank You,
Like I said, I has QOS turned of, but somehow it turned itself back on. I am the only one that uses this computer, so that is a puzzle.
I took your advice and turned off QOS and my VOIP calls seem perfect for the most part. |
|
| reply to christcorp
My experience differs from christcorp. I also have been through the same cycles of technologies (starting with a 300 baud modem on a Commodore 64). Even with today's Comcast rates (15 down/2 up), if I turn off QOS, outbound audio can get garbled. This is especially true if I'm using Slingbox to watch something and she's on the phone - it will hog up ALL available bandwidth.
Maybe I'm in the minority. But services like Slingbox, Carbonite/Mozy, remote SSH/RDP sessions, etc., the upstream bandwidth can be easily consumed very quickly. And that's exactly what residential QOS takes care of.
I have set my upstream limit to 1900 kbit/s. I lose 100 kbit/s plus whatever "Comcast SpeedBoost" provides. No big deal. I know that I'm guaranteeing my phone service will be as flawless as can be with regards to bandwidth. I can easily see the categories of traffic, set limits, priorities, etc. I have run speedtests through this and I get 1875 kbit/s upstream with the limit set at 1900. Pretty darn good.
I suggest you experiment. The only problem is that you won't notice the issue - the person you are talking to will. Maybe call your cell phone and try things out while pegging your bandwidth as much as you normally do.
For me, QOS is a must. And Tomato's is fantastic. |
|
