dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
2191
share rss forum feed


Johkal
Cool Cat
Premium,MVM
join:2002-11-13
Happy Valley
kudos:6
reply to Cheese

Re: [Speed] PSA: Slow WiFi on Comcast? May be Comcasts Fault


WMM specification
Click for full size
said by Cheese:

My WMM is off, I am not sure what is mandatory about it?

»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_M···tensions - I see nothing here to indicate it's "mandatory" one bit...

Even though I left mine enabled, I can easily disable it. I can't see how it's mandatory if I have an option to disable it.
--
In God we trust; all others bring data!



Cheese
Premium
join:2003-10-26
Naples, FL
kudos:1

It's not, I just think that post was from someone who just doesn't really know.

Edit : I did find an article about APPLE products not connecting to N if it's disabled

»support.apple.com/kb/TS3727



Johkal
Cool Cat
Premium,MVM
join:2002-11-13
Happy Valley
kudos:6

Before I posted, I disabled it & the re-enabled just for the fun of it with no negative issues.



Cheese
Premium
join:2003-10-26
Naples, FL
kudos:1

Found this is an article :

"Since WMM support is required for products to be certified for 802.11n, WMM comes enabled by default in all Wi-Fi Certified n APs and wireless routers. So even if you don't have any WMM-aware devices on your network, leave WMM enabled or you may find your clients connecting only at 54 Mbps rates."

But this is not true in my case, I am connected at 130mbps at the moment. So either these people don' know what they are talking about, or this might be with certain chipsets.



Johkal
Cool Cat
Premium,MVM
join:2002-11-13
Happy Valley
kudos:6

I just got done trying a few things out by disabling WMM & here is the rub. In a mixed network on my 2.4GHz, I had no issues connecting with "N" devices, but indeed they were bumped down to "G" speeds. My 5GHz network was unobtainable. So, I would say with my router I can not disable WMM and use "N" only.



happyanon62

@amanah.com
reply to Johkal

Here's an interesting post about someone who is having a WMM issue.
One machine seems to get affected by it being off, another works fine.
»communities.intel.com/thread/30932
As per intel's response, WMM is needed for some IEEE spec adherence in wifi n.

Even though this is a different issue than what started the thread it illustrates how complicated this issue is as a whole, Wireless N (speeds over 54), QOS field, WMM conformance.
Some routers don't care what the incomming QOS in the packet is, some do.
Some wifi adapters don't care if WMM is on, some do.
All of this is creating compensatory arguments for who is correct or not.



Cheese
Premium
join:2003-10-26
Naples, FL
kudos:1

1 recommendation

reply to Johkal

Click for full size
This is how mine looks right now


Johkal
Cool Cat
Premium,MVM
join:2002-11-13
Happy Valley
kudos:6
reply to happyanon62

Well, I can't make any correlation since my adapter has been disabled and disabling WMM in the router shouldn't kill my "N" network. I'll have to try all of my "N" clients and see if they are affected.

plat2on1

join:2002-08-21
Hopewell Junction, NY

said by Johkal:

Well, I can't make any correlation since my adapter has been disabled and disabling WMM in the router shouldn't kill my "N" network. I'll have to try all of my "N" clients and see if they are affected.

that setting only effects ad hoc networks, if you are connected to an access point it does nothing.


Johkal
Cool Cat
Premium,MVM
join:2002-11-13
Happy Valley
kudos:6

Well, that's the only setting for WMM I have.



Cheese
Premium
join:2003-10-26
Naples, FL
kudos:1

You don't have that option in your router?



Johkal
Cool Cat
Premium,MVM
join:2002-11-13
Happy Valley
kudos:6

That's the only WMM option for my adapter.


jhilliar

join:2013-09-19
reply to happyanon62

said by :

Here's an interesting post about someone who is having a WMM issue.
One machine seems to get affected by it being off, another works fine.
»communities.intel.com/thread/30932
As per intel's response, WMM is needed for some IEEE spec adherence in wifi n.

Even though this is a different issue than what started the thread it illustrates how complicated this issue is as a whole, Wireless N (speeds over 54), QOS field, WMM conformance.
Some routers don't care what the incomming QOS in the packet is, some do.
Some wifi adapters don't care if WMM is on, some do.
All of this is creating compensatory arguments for who is correct or not.

What I have been saying is simply that you can't expect full performance without WMM enabled in many situations. It is my opinion that this is almost entirely Comcast's fault since they are screwing with stuff they shouldn't be for no real reason. I would like to know why Comcast is doing this but I can't really see any reason other than it was possibly a shortcut for Comcast's internal network management, which is still no reason to be sending packets to customers with DSCP set like this. I have yet to hear of a single other ISP that has done something like this. This issue is complicated on the consumer networking side but there is a simple fix and that is for Comcast to stop setting DSCP on packets. For reference this is the specific mandatory spec »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/802.11e and all Comcast traffic is marked as "background". Anyone who is able to get over wireless g speeds probably has hardware that does not entirely conform the the wireless N spec, not that that is necessarily a bad thing especially in this case.


happyanon62

@charter.com

I definitely think its their fault too. If you look at the issue as a whole, fixing the downstream packets on their end would yield the best bang for buck ratio, and fix most of the situations.
I think they're doing it cause of special service prioritization. I read awhile back that there are some "special services" which were cap exempt, like their skype thing. At least when they still had the cap.
Maybe they kept it around for congestion priority though. Are there some online, direct from comcast, streaming services? I bet they'd have a different priority number in that field.

Anyway, its just bad management on their part. I'm a programmer, when I use something that could potentially be shared, i need to clean up after myself, lest I incur unwanted side-effects. The same should be applied here.

Thanks for your time in figuring this out.


GTFan

join:2004-12-03

1 edit

Wow, can verify that this made a huge difference in d/l speeds on a Netgear WNR3500L running Toastman's K26 Tomato 1.28. Before the DSCP change could only get 16-20mbps WAN-to-LAN max on wireless, after now get around 45mbps. LAN-to-LAN was always around 60-64 so I knew something was screwy going out the WAN. This is on Comcast Blast tier btw, I get 50-55 d/l on wired Ethernet.

Thanks OP, one thing though - when I copy/pasted the iptables command the double dashes before set-dscp didn't go over correctly in Chrome, ended up as a nonprintable char. Had to correct that manually, hopefully this one is right:

iptables -t mangle -A PREROUTING -i vlan2 -j DSCP --set-dscp 0


n_w95482
Premium
join:2005-08-03
Ukiah, CA

That's interesting. I'm using a WNDR3700 v2 with DD-WRT build 21676, and there doesn't seem to be an option for WMM anywhere. I found one person mention that it's permanently enabled for Atheros-based firmware, which is the SoC my router uses.

I just checked on my laptop and it gets the same speeds as my wired PCs (83/16 on 75/15). Wireless to LAN was 105-130 Mbps. It did 193 a few days ago, in the exact same spot. Yay wireless .

One thing that I'm curious about is how long this has been happening.
--
KI6RIT


jhilliar

join:2013-09-19

I would guess its a much more noticeable issue on certain broadcom based routers.


maxm

join:2002-10-14
Atlanta, GA
reply to jhilliar

Thanks for the fix. I am using e3000 with shibby 112. Wan->Lan via wifi speed increases from 20mpbs to 57mbps.


jhilliar

join:2013-09-19

said by maxm:

Thanks for the fix. I am using e3000 with shibby 112. Wan->Lan via wifi speed increases from 20mpbs to 57mbps.

That is virtually identical to the speed increase I saw on my e3000, except it was 20>30 which what my connection was provisioned for. On my e2000 running shibby 112 however it was closer to 10>60 on the blast package for that one.


NetDog
Premium,VIP
join:2002-03-04
Parker, CO
kudos:49

1 recommendation

reply to jhilliar

Just to give everyone a heads up we are looking at this right now trying to recreate it..
--
Comcaster.. Network Engineer with NETO


jhilliar

join:2013-09-19

said by NetDog:

Just to give everyone a heads up we are looking at this right now trying to recreate it..

Do you have any idea why Comcast would even set DSCP values in the first place? No other ISP appears to do the same as far as I can tell.


NetDog
Premium,VIP
join:2002-03-04
Parker, CO
kudos:49

The tests I see so far don't have the DSCP values set on the WAN interface of the modem..
--
Comcaster.. Network Engineer with NETO


plat2on1

join:2002-08-21
Hopewell Junction, NY

said by NetDog:

The tests I see so far don't have the DSCP values set on the WAN interface of the modem..

using an arris tm722 i'm definitely seeing my packets marked 0x08


NetDog
Premium,VIP
join:2002-03-04
Parker, CO
kudos:49
Reviews:
·Comcast

said by plat2on1:

using an arris tm722 i'm definitely seeing my packets marked 0x08

PM me your CM-MAC please I want to take a look at your device..
--
Comcaster.. Network Engineer with NETO


NetDog
Premium,VIP
join:2002-03-04
Parker, CO
kudos:49
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to plat2on1

said by plat2on1:

using an arris tm722 i'm definitely seeing my packets marked 0x08

Do you see the packets marked directly connected to the modem or when connected to the router?
--
Comcaster.. Network Engineer with NETO

jhilliar

join:2013-09-19

said by NetDog:

said by plat2on1:

using an arris tm722 i'm definitely seeing my packets marked 0x08

Do you see the packets marked directly connected to the modem or when connected to the router?

Are you having trouble seeing that the packets are actually being set to 0x08?

plat2on1

join:2002-08-21
Hopewell Junction, NY
reply to NetDog

alix 6d2 running pfsense 2.1 directly connected to the modem capturing packets on the WAN


willmo

join:2013-06-03
Seattle, WA
reply to NetDog

I have a packet capture from my router's WAN interface showing DSCP = 0x08 on inbound packets, both IPv4 and IPv6. NetDog, I can PM you a link if you're interested.



NetDog
Premium,VIP
join:2002-03-04
Parker, CO
kudos:49
Reviews:
·Comcast

said by willmo:

I have a packet capture from my router's WAN interface showing DSCP = 0x08 on inbound packets, both IPv4 and IPv6. NetDog, I can PM you a link if you're interested.

Thank you.. But I have what I need at this point, looking into this..
--
Comcaster.. Network Engineer with NETO

jhilliar

join:2013-09-19

said by NetDog:

said by willmo:

I have a packet capture from my router's WAN interface showing DSCP = 0x08 on inbound packets, both IPv4 and IPv6. NetDog, I can PM you a link if you're interested.

Thank you.. But I have what I need at this point, looking into this..

I never had the bad DSCP of 0x08 on ipv6, only ipv4. ipv6 was actually always working without issue as far as I could tell.