ER605 Firmware 2.1.3 - QoS Bandwidth Control Query / Other
This thread has been locked for further replies. You can start a new thread to share your ideas or ask questions.
ER605 V2 2.1.3 - Omada 5.9.32 on the OC200.
So this beta firwmare two things. A. I keep getting TCP SYN Dropped x packets every 3 mins in the event log but it shows me nothing, no IP ...... no info...?
The second thing... The "Quality of Services" Bandwidth Control seems like the stupidiest thing I've ever come across........ So it allows you to divide up the bandwidth depending on the QoS Class. Why would anyone want to limit the bandwidth with how this function works? ... We want to ensure balance.... eg. Ultimately you'd want all classes to have access to the full bandwidth but load balance depending on whats going on not actually be limited to x percent.
Seems so stupid. Can TP Link weigh in on the purpose of this silly feature?.... And I am presuming by it saying "Quality of Services" that it's not actually the normal QoS...
eg people might have gaming, browsing, voip etc...... nobody wants to remove bandwidth from one for the other.....
Surely I am not the only one who see's this as very silly.
- Copy Link
- Subscribe
- Bookmark
- Report Inappropriate Content
- Copy Link
- Report Inappropriate Content
Just because you don't personally see a purpose for bandwidth control doesn't make it silly/stupid. Remember that this system is designed for business use despite many of us opting to use it for home use. There are many different use cases for QoS. The most obvious and common purpose is to prioritize traffic such as VoIP to ensure the highest quality service for voice/meetings. And since you ultimately have no control over QoS once the traffic leaves your LAN, you are really only controlling it within. In such cases, you are typically prioritizing the traffic on your internal network such that VoIP traffic gets to the "front of the line" over your APs and switches to ensure that traffic doesn't get queued in the event that someone has something like a large file transfer going that may saturate the uplink of an AP/switch.
However, there could be situations where you want to ensure for example that multiple users all in an online meeting can't consume 100% of your Internet bandwidth and impact users' ability to conduct other business such as file transfers between VPN connected sites, use of SaaS services like M365, SalesForce, etc. So perhaps you'd want to limit Teams/Zoom/Webex traffic to no more than 80% of total available bandwidth leaving the remaining 20% for VPN/email/Sharepoint/other SaaS services. Perhaps you even want to limited the bandwidth used by site-to-site VPN, again, to preserve some bandwidth for SaaS services.
- Copy Link
- Report Inappropriate Content
SingletrackMind wrote
Just because you don't personally see a purpose for bandwidth control doesn't make it silly/stupid. Remember that this system is designed for business use despite many of us opting to use it for home use. There are many different use cases for QoS. The most obvious and common purpose is to prioritize traffic such as VoIP to ensure the highest quality service for voice/meetings. And since you ultimately have no control over QoS once the traffic leaves your LAN, you are really only controlling it within. In such cases, you are typically prioritizing the traffic on your internal network such that VoIP traffic gets to the "front of the line" over your APs and switches to ensure that traffic doesn't get queued in the event that someone has something like a large file transfer going that may saturate the uplink of an AP/switch.
However, there could be situations where you want to ensure for example that multiple users all in an online meeting can't consume 100% of your Internet bandwidth and impact users' ability to conduct other business such as file transfers between VPN connected sites, use of SaaS services like M365, SalesForce, etc. So perhaps you'd want to limit Teams/Zoom/Webex traffic to no more than 80% of total available bandwidth leaving the remaining 20% for VPN/email/Sharepoint/other SaaS services. Perhaps you even want to limited the bandwidth used by site-to-site VPN, again, to preserve some bandwidth for SaaS services.
Completely agree ^^^
FQ_Codel would be a nice add to the "QoS" section.
- Copy Link
- Report Inappropriate Content
Have you tried using it? I would suggest doing so. It does not seem very accurate and it's a full on bandwidth limiter where you MUST device your total bandwidth in 4 virtually.... What instead it should be is dynamically expandable and give you the option to limit JUST the things you set as a MAXIMUM bandwidth allowed not device up the entire connection....
Typically QoS does not seek to control everything as a total..... it just aims to add a minimum for things and a priority.
- Copy Link
- Report Inappropriate Content
KimcheeGUN wrote
SingletrackMind wrote
Just because you don't personally see a purpose for bandwidth control doesn't make it silly/stupid. Remember that this system is designed for business use despite many of us opting to use it for home use. There are many different use cases for QoS. The most obvious and common purpose is to prioritize traffic such as VoIP to ensure the highest quality service for voice/meetings. And since you ultimately have no control over QoS once the traffic leaves your LAN, you are really only controlling it within. In such cases, you are typically prioritizing the traffic on your internal network such that VoIP traffic gets to the "front of the line" over your APs and switches to ensure that traffic doesn't get queued in the event that someone has something like a large file transfer going that may saturate the uplink of an AP/switch.
However, there could be situations where you want to ensure for example that multiple users all in an online meeting can't consume 100% of your Internet bandwidth and impact users' ability to conduct other business such as file transfers between VPN connected sites, use of SaaS services like M365, SalesForce, etc. So perhaps you'd want to limit Teams/Zoom/Webex traffic to no more than 80% of total available bandwidth leaving the remaining 20% for VPN/email/Sharepoint/other SaaS services. Perhaps you even want to limited the bandwidth used by site-to-site VPN, again, to preserve some bandwidth for SaaS services.
Completely agree ^^^
FQ_Codel would be a nice add to the "QoS" section.
agree with y'all.
esp: Just because you don't personally see a purpose for bandwidth control doesn't make it silly/stupid.
why do you have to bully a function that seems useless to you while you use it for home?
in certain packets, they can be detected and classified into different groups so that they are placed in different priorities in transmission.
- Copy Link
- Report Inappropriate Content
Information
Helpful: 2
Views: 3159
Replies: 5
Voters 0
No one has voted for it yet.