[ previous ] [ next ] [ threads ]
 
 From:  Peter Teunissen <lists at onemanifest dot net>
 To:  m0n0wall <m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch>
 Subject:  Re: [m0n0wall] strange behavior with m0n0wall, PPPoE and Netgear Powerline connection.
 Date:  Wed, 9 Nov 2011 20:48:06 +0100
OK, I used linux for this:

1408 (this includes icmp & ip) fails:

    $ ping -s 1380 -c 1 xs4all.nl
    PING xs4all.nl (194.109.21.8) 1380(1408) bytes of data.
    From m0n0wall.onemanifest.net (192.168.1.1) icmp_seq=1 Frag needed and DF set (mtu = 1400)

    --- xs4all.nl ping statistics ---
    1 packets transmitted, 0 received, +1 errors, 100% packet loss, time 0ms

1407 works:

    $ ping -s 1379 -c 1 xs4all.nl
    PING xs4all.nl (194.109.21.8) 1379(1407) bytes of data.
    1387 bytes from xs8.xs4all.nl (194.109.21.8): icmp_req=1 ttl=61 time=38.9 ms

    --- xs4all.nl ping statistics ---
    1 packets transmitted, 1 received, 0% packet loss, time 0ms
    rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 38.996/38.996/38.996/0.000 ms


So, the max MTU would be 1407, but since there'll be PPPoE and VLAN also on the line, the MTU
setting should be 1407 - 10 = 1397

Tried this, and it does increase the download with about 10Mb. Oddly enough, the upload remains low
and unchanged.

Trying the ping on the m0n0wall itself (through exec.php) gives slightly different result: ideal mtu
should be 1395. Tried, but the results are similar to MTU of 1397.



Thanks Ash


On 9 nov. 2011, at 03:11, Payne Jr, Ash C wrote:

> In windows,  do ping [ip] -f -l [MTU to test] 
> 
> -f says do not fragment
> -l sets the length of the payload 
> 
> If 1472 will pass,  but 1473 will not,  you should add 28 to 1472 to determine MTU.  28 is the
necessary header size for IP and ICMP.
> 
> Best of luck,
> Ashworth
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On Nov 8, 2011, at 6:08 PM, "Peter Teunissen" <lists at onemanifest dot net> wrote:
> 
>> That does make a difference, thanks! I tried lowering in small steps and going as low as 1400
made some difference in throughput. I'm getting close to the maximum the Powerline adapters can do.
Need to do some more testing to find an optimal setting.
>> 
>> However, this doesn't affect latency. I'm still at 30ms as opposed to 7ms when using cable of
Powerline adapters with the ISP supplied modem.
>> 
>> 
>> On 8 nov. 2011, at 23:39, Payne Jr, Ash C wrote:
>> 
>>> 1492 is too big. Add six bytes for ppoe and four bytes for VLAN tag.  That's ten.  The power
line thingamabobs are causing fragments because frame size is 1510 with ppoe and a VLAN.  
>>> 
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>> 
>>> On Nov 8, 2011, at 1:30 AM, "Peter Teunissen" <lists at onemanifest dot net> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On 8 nov. 2011, at 02:22, Matthew Cramer wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Did you force m0n0wall into accepting a PPPoE MTU of 1500 by editing the settings xml? Through
the GUI if refuses to go over the default 1492.
>>>> 
>>>>> Try and raise the mtu to 1500. That fixed a problem for me using a vodafone femocell behind a
monowall using PPOE.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Sent from my Android phone
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Nov 7, 2011 10:09 PM, "Peter Teunissen" <lists at onemanifest dot net> wrote:
>>>>> Tried lowering the PPPoE MTU setting. Tested with the default 1492, 1400 and 1200. No
significant changes is speed, latency is the same. I don't know what an E packet is, so I can't tell
whether it's different :-)
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 7 nov. 2011, at 22:30, Eddie Pounce wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Long shot:  MTU?  or something - packet being split?
>>>>>>   They don't handle PPOE well (is the E packet formatted differently from normal?)?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 07/11/2011 21:12, Peter Teunissen wrote:
>>>>>>> I'm running on a PIII 1Ghz. I just checked the speed test monitoring the CPU. It only goes
slightly over 25% CPU. So I think CPU performance isn't the culprit. Also, when directly connected
to the FTU by a cable, I get latency 7ms and 50+Mb up/down. It really has to do with being connect
through the Powerline connectors while using PPPoE.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Peter
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 7 nov. 2011, at 22:01, James L. Lauser wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> What kind of hardware is your m0n0wall running on?  It's possible that
>>>>>>>> it's simply not fast enough to do the PPPoE encapsulation at that data
>>>>>>>> rate.  Take a look at the CPU utilization graph while trying to stress
>>>>>>>> your connection.  If you're pegging the CPU, you need a faster device.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> --  James L. Lauser
>>>>>>>> james at jlauser dot net
>>>>>>>> http://jlauser.net/
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 15:54, Peter Teunissen <lists at onemanifest dot net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I've got an issue with m0n0wall and PPPoE that I can't explain.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> - I have FTTH, 50Mb up/down, dual stack, connection is through PPPoE
>>>>>>>>> - When used with the ISP supplied router, I get 7ms latency, and 50Mb up/down
>>>>>>>>> - When m0n0wall is connected directly to the FTU with a cable and responsible for setting
up the PPPoE, I get latency 7ms, 50+ up/down
>>>>>>>>> - When the setup is FTU > ISP router > Netgear powerline 500's > m0n0wall (static IP's on
the m0n0wall) I still get a latency of 7 ms, only speed is about 48Mb, due to the Powerline
connectors.
>>>>>>>>> - when testing the Netgear Powerline 500's separately, they perform consistently at about
48Mb with no dicernable effect on latency.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Now the surprise, when I connect the m0n0wall directly to the FTU, having it create the
PPPoE by itself, but using the Netgear Powerlines instead of a cable, latency goes up to 25+ms and
speeds are down to about 27Mb up/down.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I'd think this can't be caused by the Powerlines, since they perform fine by themselves
and in combination with the ISP supplied router. Somehow, m0n0wall responds to the Powerline
connection when using PPPoE instead of a static IP.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> What kind of auto configuration does m0n0wall do when setting up PPPoE? It seems to
somehow respond differently to the FTU's ethernet socket than to those of the Netgear Powerline.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I'm quite clueless about this. Does anyone have any suggestions as to where to look for an
explanation or what to try to get m0n0wall to perform better in this setup?
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Peter
>>>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: m0n0wall dash unsubscribe at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: m0n0wall dash help at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: m0n0wall dash unsubscribe at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: m0n0wall dash help at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: m0n0wall dash unsubscribe at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: m0n0wall dash help at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: m0n0wall dash unsubscribe at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: m0n0wall dash help at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> E-MAIL CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The contents of this e-mail message and 
>>> any attachments are intended solely for the 
>>> addressee(s) and may contain confidential 
>>> and/or legally privileged information. If you 
>>> are not the intended recipient of this message 
>>> or if this message has been addressed to you 
>>> in error, please immediately alert the sender
>>> by reply e-mail and then delete this message 
>>> and any attachments. If you are not the 
>>> intended recipient, you are notified that 
>>> any use, dissemination, distribution, copying, 
>>> or storage of this message or any attachment 
>>> is strictly prohibited.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: m0n0wall dash unsubscribe at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
>> For additional commands, e-mail: m0n0wall dash help at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
>> 
> 
> E-MAIL CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The contents of this e-mail message and 
> any attachments are intended solely for the 
> addressee(s) and may contain confidential 
> and/or legally privileged information. If you 
> are not the intended recipient of this message 
> or if this message has been addressed to you 
> in error, please immediately alert the sender
> by reply e-mail and then delete this message 
> and any attachments. If you are not the 
> intended recipient, you are notified that 
> any use, dissemination, distribution, copying, 
> or storage of this message or any attachment 
> is strictly prohibited.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>