 joakoPremium
join:2000-09-07
/dev/null
kudos:5 | reply to digiblur
Re: [Equipment] My solution for in QOS for VOIP Is there any way to set high priority for a certain host? I would be really interested. Also, any non wireless router this would work on? Or disable the wireless on the WRT54G? |
|
 digiblurGot Sipura?Premium
join:2002-06-03
Louisiana | said by joako:
Is there any way to set high priority for a certain host? I would be really interested. Also, any non wireless router this would work on? Or disable the wireless on the WRT54G?
No not at this time, you can only set low priority ports and IP addresses. But as Sveasoft stated in later releases we will be able to configure the bandwidth management more. I'd like to be able to set the VOIP box as high priority, set XBox gaming at high, set web browsing as medium priority, then everything else as low. Hopefully we will have more flexibility soon.
Yes... I'm pretty sure you can turn the wireless off. If not, in the advanced wireless tab where you dial in the milliwatts of wireless output you can set this to zero. |
|
| reply to digiblur
said by digiblur:
I did the same thing as you, I picked up a BEFSR81 thinking it would end all of my problems. I took the port that the VOIP was connected to and set it as high priority and set all the others as low. It helped out a little bit but if I had any P2P apps, uploading email, uploading digital pics, posting on the newsgroups, etc..my VOIP was unusable.
There is a 3rd possibility with the Linksys besides high priority and low; you can set port (or application) QoS as "Disabled". Did you try any of these variations? If you tried everything using the latest firmware, and it still didn't work, then the BEFSR81 is basically a waste of money and will not function as advertised. We should all return it and get our money back. |
|
| The basic question with the BEFSR81 is whether or not it's QoS capabilities apply to packets traveling from a LAN port to the WAN port. Your ISP's router must perform packet prioritization to enhance QoS in the downstream direction. In the upstream direction, for which most of our broadband connections are fairly limited (128 - 384 kbps), your router must be able to buffer and prioritize traffic being sent to the ISP so as not to oversubscribe your connection while sending a large email, runing a P2P app, etc. and talking on the IP phone at the same time. Based on a few different evasive e-mail responses from tech support and my own trials, it would seem that it does not prioritize traffic in the upstream direction.
So, unless you need to prioritize traffic from LAN port to LAN port, or you are using the BEFSR81 in a larger switched network that supports prioritization based on 802.1p tagging (which your ISP does not), then it would seem the BEFSR81 won't help with VoIP QoS. |
|
|
|
| reply to digiblur
said by digiblur:
said by joako:
Is there any way to set high priority for a certain host? I would be really interested. Also, any non wireless router this would work on? Or disable the wireless on the WRT54G?
No not at this time, you can only set low priority ports and IP addresses. But as Sveasoft stated in later releases we will be able to configure the bandwidth management more. I'd like to be able to set the VOIP box as high priority, set XBox gaming at high, set web browsing as medium priority, then everything else as low. Hopefully we will have more flexibility soon.
**snip**
I think what one would really like to do is allocate available bandwidth. As an example; I know that the best quality codec for my VoIP w/Vonage is about 90K. If I know my upload bandwidth is, say 256K, I can allocate the VoIP application 90K and the rest of the bandwidth is allocated to other devices (defined or not).
Setting a high, medium and low really doesn't have any meaning. What is high? All the bandwidth? Some of the bandwidth? How much of the bandwidth? |
|
| If it works properly, setting relative priority levels is an effective mechanism. Instead of relating to specific amounts of bandwidth, it relates to how individual packets are handled. For example, if a voip packet is received by the router and is somehow prioritized as "high", it will be transmitted before other types of traffic in the router's buffer. Therefore, jitter, latency, etc. are reduced for VoIP at the expense of higher jitter, latency, and effectively reduced bandwidth for other applications.
If you have a big enough connection, then everything can be sent from the router without any unnecessary buffering. |
|
digiblurGot Sipura?Premium
join:2002-06-03
Louisiana | reply to joako
said by joako:
Is there any way to set high priority for a certain host? I would be really interested. Also, any non wireless router this would work on? Or disable the wireless on the WRT54G?
Yes it can be disabled... |
|
| reply to ABitCrazy
said by ABitCrazy:
If it works properly, setting relative priority levels is an effective mechanism. Instead of relating to specific amounts of bandwidth, it relates to how individual packets are handled. For example, if a voip packet is received by the router and is somehow prioritized as "high", it will be transmitted before other types of traffic in the router's buffer. Therefore, jitter, latency, etc. are reduced for VoIP at the expense of higher jitter, latency, and effectively reduced bandwidth for other applications.
If you have a big enough connection, then everything can be sent from the router without any unnecessary buffering.
I understand your point but I would rather have "guaranteed" badwidth for applications, IP's, subnets, etc. I think for an operational perspective, it provides better QoS (I don't mean the Linksys definition), IMO. |
|
| said by Lighthouse2:
I understand your point but I would rather have "guaranteed" badwidth for applications, IP's, subnets, etc. I think for an operational perspective, it provides better QoS (I don't mean the Linksys definition), IMO.
True, it would be nice if this were possible, but this is just not practical in the IP world, using technologies like Ethernet with no inherent mechanisms to dedicate bandwidth.
On the other hand, the next generation of cable modem technology (DOCSIS 1.1) does have the ability to setup "service flows" for different types of traffic. Since DOCSIS uses TDM-based transport, it can provide dedicated channels like ATM or SONET. Unfortunately, this is something set be the cable modem provider within the headend equipment, not by the end user, so your cable company would not likely dedicate capacity for a third party VoIP provider. |
|
| said by ABitCrazy:
said by Lighthouse2:
I understand your point but I would rather have "guaranteed" badwidth for applications, IP's, subnets, etc. I think for an operational perspective, it provides better QoS (I don't mean the Linksys definition), IMO.
True, it would be nice if this were possible, but this is just not practical in the IP world, using technologies like Ethernet with no inherent mechanisms to dedicate bandwidth.
**snip**
This is not only possible but is being delivered on higher end routers such as Cisco and XyXEL and is very practical. |
|
| said by Lighthouse2:
This is not only possible but is being delivered on higher end routers such as Cisco and XyXEL and is very practical.
I think we are on the same page here, but I think end-to-end when discussing "guaranteed" capacity. Linksys either has a poor implementation of prioritization or simply does not support it across its WAN ports. Whether using packet prioritization or "guaranteed" capacity features, such as Cisco's Committed Access Rate (CAR) limiting, the effective result is essentially the same without end-to-end network support for QoS.
Ultimately, I would like to see any implementation of QoS enhancements, whether a guaranteed rate or simple packet prioritization, supported from end user to ISP gateways. Without end-to-end support, even the best router will only be able to control the relative release time of packets to a best-effort ISP backbone. This goes for cable modem, DSL, etc. |
|
digiblurGot Sipura?Premium
join:2002-06-03
Louisiana | reply to ABitCrazy
said by ABitCrazy:
If it works properly, setting relative
If you have a big enough connection, then everything can be sent from the router without any unnecessary buffering.
If the user has the money to afford a 100mbit/100mbit line for his home I don't think he/she will be fooling around with residential products(ie. Linksys, Packet8, Vonage, etc).
All I care about is that it works!  |
|
 scoobyPremium
join:2001-05-01
Schaumburg, IL
kudos:1 | reply to digiblur
Does it matter which version of the WRT54G? How much ram/flash ram does this thing have? |
|
| said by scooby:
Does it matter which version of the WRT54G? How much ram/flash ram does this thing have?
No, I'm using it on a v1.0. |
|
| reply to ABitCrazy
said by ABitCrazy:
said by Lighthouse2:
This is not only possible but is being delivered on higher end routers such as Cisco and XyXEL and is very practical.
I think we are on the same page here, but I think end-to-end when discussing "guaranteed" capacity. Linksys either has a poor implementation of prioritization or simply does not support it across its WAN ports. Whether using packet prioritization or "guaranteed" capacity features, such as Cisco's Committed Access Rate (CAR) limiting, the effective result is essentially the same without end-to-end network support for QoS.
Ultimately, I would like to see any implementation of QoS enhancements, whether a guaranteed rate or simple packet prioritization, supported from end user to ISP gateways. Without end-to-end support, even the best router will only be able to control the relative release time of packets to a best-effort ISP backbone. This goes for cable modem, DSL, etc.
I agree 100 percent. The standards support it, it just hasn't been implemented very well, if at all. Thanks for the comments. |
|
digiblurGot Sipura?Premium
join:2002-06-03
Louisiana | reply to scooby
said by scooby:
Does it matter which version of the WRT54G? How much ram/flash ram does this thing have?
As far as I know it works on the 1.0, 1.1, and 2.0 version. |
|
 The BeerI Love It When A Plan Comes TogetherPremium
join:2001-07-24
Atlantic, IA | reply to digiblur
Does anyone know where they might be on IPsec on these?
I have a TON of BEFVP41's I would love to replace!
I did however pick up one of these to play with today! |
|
digiblurGot Sipura?Premium
join:2002-06-03
Louisiana | said by The Beer:
Does anyone know where they might be on IPsec on these?
I have a TON of BEFVP41's I would love to replace!
I did however pick up one of these to play with today!
Here is a link to the change log. Haven't played around the VPN stuff yet:
»ftp://ftp.sveasoft.com/pub/Firmware_Sa···hangelog |
|
| reply to tlg
I have two comments. No, three! No, two comments and two questions.
Question: How did this interesting thread fall down to page 7?  We fix it...
1) Best Buy will be putting the WRT54G on sale for $80 (after rebates) next week.
2) Jeff, did you ever turn off the UPnP on your BEFSR81 and solve your lock-up problem? I have not observed mine locking up, but I can still return the [expletive deleted] thing if it really truly can't do QoS to the WAN port as others have claimed. Neither you nor anybody else having troubles with their BEFSR81's have told us what firmware they are running, nor whether they left the low-priority ports set to "low" or "disabled" or used the un-prioritizable 4 ports hooked up to their bandwidth-hogging equipment. |
|
| Finished looking through tomorrow's ads...
Circuit City has the same deal as Best Buy, and so does CompUSA if I can trust the picture. |
|
