Traffic Prio testing

[felipe]

Need feedback. I came across old traffic prio threads and decided to do some testing. See the picture below. It’s peculiar that only 1 saw prioritized traffic. Are my other rules wrong? I’m confused why they didn’t see traffic?

Fluidity felt fine, but need more testing to really formulate an opinion.

This was playing cdl lobbies for a few hours with me hosting and others hosting in various cod MW servers across the country. 
 

So am I doing something wrong with these rules ?

[johnnytran]

I could be wrong (I don't manually prioritise ports) but wouldn't you just need the rule that's working for you, except make it 30000:65535 as destination. Also reverse it, so 30000:65353 - 3074 UDP.

When I've looked at wireshark, if I was reading it correctly, all gaming traffic with the server is through UDP 30000-65535, I don't think I saw any ports lower than that. There is some communication through TCP but I'm not exactly sure what that is - could be things related to your performance, saving stats etc

[Netduma Fraser]

The source ports could literally be anything which is why it can be hard to nail it doing a rule like that. We suggest using 1-65535 for source and then changing the destination to the ports you want. Others will surely post with their suggestions as well.

[deuce98lau]

7 hours ago, johnnytran said:

I could be wrong (I don't manually prioritise ports) but wouldn't you just need the rule that's working for you, except make it 30000:65535 as destination. Also reverse it, so 30000:65353 - 3074 UDP.

When I've looked at wireshark, if I was reading it correctly, all gaming traffic with the server is through UDP 30000-65535, I don't think I saw any ports lower than that. There is some communication through TCP but I'm not exactly sure what that is - could be things related to your performance, saving stats etc

I think I read guys say only 30000-45000 because that's the critical server ports. I thought they purposely left out 45K-65K to not prioritize everything and slow things down? IDK, but that was my understanding for the specific range. Its def something I'm trying to test and understand better.

[deuce98lau]

38 minutes ago, Netduma Fraser said:

The source ports could literally be anything which is why it can be hard to nail it doing a rule like that. We suggest using 1-65535 for source and then changing the destination to the ports you want. Others will surely post with their suggestions as well.

I'm just doing testing so after this exercise I will surely add that as well as the 45K-65K range to see how it feels and what traffic each sees. 

 

Thanks guys!

 

[Bert]

You only need UDP 3074 - 30000:45000 for PS4.

 

You don't need the opposite of that since both upload and download traffic are prioritized in that. You could make the destination 30000:65535 or whatever you please but for CoD I find 30.000-45.000 works for me.

 

So in your case the 2nd rule will do you don't need the rest.

[RedBull2k]

On 10/19/2020 at 12:23 PM, Netduma Fraser said:

The source ports could literally be anything which is why it can be hard to nail it doing a rule like that. We suggest using 1-65535 for source and then changing the destination to the ports you want. Others will surely post with their suggestions as well.

On the xr500 you can add manual ports mid-game and it works Flawlessly! You can not do this on the R2! Just like you said it can be hard to nail the exact port down, so this will be very benificial to those who can find the port mid-game. Can you get this implemented? 

[Bigfntarget]

 

[Netduma Fraser]

15 hours ago, RedBull2k said:

On the xr500 you can add manual ports mid-game and it works Flawlessly! You can not do this on the R2! Just like you said it can be hard to nail the exact port down, so this will be very benificial to those who can find the port mid-game. Can you get this implemented? 

What happens when you try to do it on the R2? We will be working on QoS improvements in the future so I expect we will show what ports are used at some point.

[RedBull2k]

A fair test is there are no prior ports or services added to Traffic Prioritization. 

I do not have 3.0 on xr500 

XR500

• I join a game of cod
• i collect the port being used
• i then manual add this port to Traffic Prioritization
• Traffic Prioritization is being counted and high priority is detected.

XR500 Works

R2

• I join a game of cod
• i collect the port being used
• i then manual add this port to Traffic Prioritization
• Traffic Prioritization is not detected or counting

R2 Does not work

2 hours ago, Netduma Fraser said:

What happens when you try to do it on the R2? We will be working on QoS improvements in the future so I expect we will show what ports are used at some point.

I dont think this should be an improvement, it seems to just be misssing! Its not a request to see ports being used this has been requested many times by many other useres.

Is there any other reason why its missing?

[Netduma Fraser]

I didn't think that was supposed to happen on the XR so I'm not sure it's a case of missing functionality, would be interested to see if it happens or not on 3.0, could you see if it works for you?

[RedBull2k]

It does happen like that, i would prefer to see consistancy in functionality accross the range/s. I think you would want that also as a gamer! You have the formula to reproduce what i have brought to your attention. 

3 hours ago, Netduma Fraser said:

I didn't think that was supposed to happen on the XR so I'm not sure it's a case of missing functionality, would be interested to see if it happens or not on 3.0, could you see if it works for you?

if 3.0 is out for xr500 send me a link/

[Netduma Fraser]

Thanks, yes it is in open beta, you can find it here: https://community.netgear.com/t5/Nighthawk-Pro-Gaming-DumaOS-3-0/bd-p/en-home-beta-npg-duma