Max IP reservation on local DHCP?

[Netduma Liam]

9 hours ago, Dc38 said:

I have tried it both, swapping it up for each session I play, and I'm speculating, but it sure feels either the firmware/hardware is not up to the task lol...it seems to be adding JUST enough latency that leaving the qos completely off (no antibloat no prio settings) seems to work slightly better for upload/hit reg.

Whatever way though, as soon as other devices either ping on, I hit HUGE lagspikes up the order of hundreds...i have all of my devices in a reserved IP list, with a separate DHCP pool for new/random stuff. 

On a side note, does the QOS treat wifi traffic the same as ethernet? And how should a device using GeforceNOW be prioritized? (I noticed that it seems to like bumping up the priority for "uncategorized")

It sounds like traffic isn't being prioritised properly, it'd be good to know what rules you have in Traffic Prio and if they're detecting any traffic.

QoS will prioritise traffic the same way whether it's wired or wireless, there are some nuances between them though. What is the device exactly? The easiest way would be to add a new rule to traffic prio for that device then select the GeForce Now service from the services list.

[Dc38]

Hi Liam, I have Geforce now on the pc I'm playing on set as priority traffic, and I AM seeing logged packets in that menu. Even the quick test in GFN shows I have an excess of bandwidth, as well as 0 packet loss, no jitter, and 7 ping.

However, the connection isn't quite as stable as one would expect it to be with all the qos turned on...I did happen to reboot the router last night, and it definitely helped the spotty performance for an hour or so. I do NOT have netgear armor activated, do you know if it would help substantially if it were to be activated? Also, is it normal for the download ping to be in the 20's to 30's while the upload ping is 4 to 7?

[Netduma Liam]

1 hour ago, Dc38 said:

Hi Liam, I have Geforce now on the pc I'm playing on set as priority traffic, and I AM seeing logged packets in that menu. Even the quick test in GFN shows I have an excess of bandwidth, as well as 0 packet loss, no jitter, and 7 ping.

However, the connection isn't quite as stable as one would expect it to be with all the qos turned on...I did happen to reboot the router last night, and it definitely helped the spotty performance for an hour or so. I do NOT have netgear armor activated, do you know if it would help substantially if it were to be activated? Also, is it normal for the download ping to be in the 20's to 30's while the upload ping is 4 to 7?

That's interesting, how many packets are you seeing prioritised approximately? Feel free to send a screenshot of the rule and we can probably gauge from that whether it seems like enough.

Armor wouldn't improve performance in-game, it's a security feature. The reason we often ask about it is because we've seen it interfere sometime in the past.

Where are you measuring the upload ping vs. download ping? Is that in the GFN menu or are you using Geo-filter to see that?

[Dc38]

On 7/13/2022 at 12:31 PM, Netduma Liam said:

That's interesting, how many packets are you seeing prioritised approximately? Feel free to send a screenshot of the rule and we can probably gauge from that whether it seems like enough.

Armor wouldn't improve performance in-game, it's a security feature. The reason we often ask about it is because we've seen it interfere sometime in the past.

Where are you measuring the upload ping vs. download ping? Is that in the GFN menu or are you using Geo-filter to see that?

Sorry for the late reply. I recently rebooted the router again and haven't used the QOS since, so no packets have been prioritized. I can turn it back on and check later today and report back then.

As for the ping stability, i used the GFN test, as they claim it is pinging their GFN servers and not a generic speed test host. 

Also, as for the 20's DL ping vs the sub 10's upload ping issue, that is on any generic speed test as well as the built in DumaOS "Connection Benchmark". Although the values are still relatively low, I don't know why the DL ping is roughly 3x the UL ping in general.

The one above is QOS off

The one below is QOS on

As you can see, the ping test is lower with QOS on, but the loaded DL values are relatively high. Normally the DLping is in the mid 20's.

[Netduma Liam]

Let us know how you get on with QoS!

In the screenshots you've sent, the ping between upload and download isn't too far. It may be because during the Benchmark test, DumaOS is able to congest download better than it is upload, though that's just a theory.

You could definitely bring this numbers down a lot with a good QoS configuration. When you get back to trying QoS, experiment with adjusting the Congestion Control sliders 5% at a time and re-test in Connection Benchmark each time. You can then find the best results. Just make sure Connection Benchmark is set to always while you're testing.

[Dc38]

36 minutes ago, Netduma Liam said:

Let us know how you get on with QoS!

In the screenshots you've sent, the ping between upload and download isn't too far. It may be because during the Benchmark test, DumaOS is able to congest download better than it is upload, though that's just a theory.

You could definitely bring this numbers down a lot with a good QoS configuration. When you get back to trying QoS, experiment with adjusting the Congestion Control sliders 5% at a time and re-test in Connection Benchmark each time. You can then find the best results. Just make sure Connection Benchmark is set to always while you're testing.

The best results seem to be 90/90, but with QOS on the DL is typically from 5 to 15ms higher than with it off while UL remains almost the same. 

Also, after I turned QOS on to enable the traffic Prio, the target device and service are prioritizing packets even though the device isn't even on lol...how does that work?

 

 

Below is with the QOS set to my most optimal settings, 90/90, as you can see with loaded ping, the DL ping is almost 3x the UL ping...not sure how or why it's so relatively high

And another test

 

[Netduma Fraser]

We are still improving the results on Benchmark for the XR routers, best thing is to follow this guide while saturating your connection with downloads etc and experiment with percentages to see what lowers it the most http://support.netduma.com/support/solutions/articles/16000074717-how-to-test-your-internet-ping

[Dc38]

Thank you, I'll try that for now and update with results.

[Dc38]

Hi all, QOS at 90/90 is still the best setting. According to the ping plotter, spikes above 200ms happen nearly simultaneously on all middle points of the route at set intervals except the first and last ones.  I'm assuming that there really is something wrong with the ISP nodes or game servers switching routes every 20s or so. I'll run the plot again and get a screengrab next time. Thanks again for the help!

On a side note, when the ping spikes happen, the router is getting hammered by a certain IP block especially when I play Division 2, it seems that I get every single port scanned or flooded. Arin shows the IP belonging to "Recyber Project", is there a way on Duma to filter that IP block and try to reduce the impact of the attack?

[Dc38]

[DoS attack: TCP SYN Flood] from source 89.248.165.38,port 39042 Sunday, Jul 24,2022 01:13:51
[DoS attack: TCP SYN Flood] from source 89.248.165.38,port 54528 Sunday, Jul 24,2022 01:13:51
[DoS attack: TCP SYN Flood] from source 89.248.165.38,port 59698 Sunday, Jul 24,2022 01:13:51
[DoS attack: TCP SYN Flood] from source 89.248.165.38,port 56398 Sunday, Jul 24,2022 01:13:51
[DoS attack: TCP SYN Flood] from source 89.248.165.38,port 36232 Sunday, Jul 24,2022 01:13:51
[DoS attack: TCP SYN Flood] from source 89.248.165.38,port 34070 Sunday, Jul 24,2022 01:13:51
[DoS attack: TCP SYN Flood] from source 89.248.165.38,port 42722 Sunday, Jul 24,2022 01:13:51
[DoS attack: TCP SYN Flood] from source 89.248.165.38,port 47794 Sunday, Jul 24,2022 01:13:51
[DoS attack: TCP SYN Flood] from source 89.248.165.38,port 45762 Sunday, Jul 24,2022 01:13:51
[DoS attack: TCP SYN Flood] from source 89.248.165.38,port 42518 Sunday, Jul 24,2022 01:13:51
[DoS attack: TCP SYN Flood] from source 89.248.165.38,port 50572 Sunday, Jul 24,2022 01:13:51
[DoS attack: TCP SYN Flood] from source 89.248.165.38,port 48516 Sunday, Jul 24,2022 01:13:51
[DoS attack: TCP SYN Flood] from source 89.248.165.38,port 57242 Sunday, Jul 24,2022 01:13:51
[DoS attack: TCP SYN Flood] from source 89.248.165.38,port 60652 Sunday, Jul 24,2022 01:13:51
[DoS attack: TCP SYN Flood] from source 89.248.165.38,port 57512 Sunday, Jul 24,2022 01:13:50
[DoS attack: TCP SYN Flood] from source 89.248.165.38,port 43132 Sunday, Jul 24,2022 01:13:50
[DoS attack: TCP SYN Flood] from source 89.248.165.38,port 53432 Sunday, Jul 24,2022 01:13:50
[DoS attack: TCP SYN Flood] from source 89.248.165.38,port 58624 Sunday, Jul 24,2022 01:13:50
[DoS attack: TCP SYN Flood] from source 89.248.165.38,port 44138 Sunday, Jul 24,2022 01:13:50
[DoS attack: TCP SYN Flood] from source 89.248.165.38,port 37070 Sunday, Jul 24,2022 01:13:50
[DoS attack: TCP SYN Flood] from source 89.248.165.38,port 45798 Sunday, Jul 24,2022 01:13:50
[DoS attack: TCP SYN Flood] from source 89.248.165.38,port 58680 Sunday, Jul 24,2022 01:13:50
[DoS attack: TCP SYN Flood] from source 89.248.165.38,port 55224 Sunday, Jul 24,2022 01:13:50
[DoS attack: TCP SYN Flood] from source 89.248.165.38,port 45070 Sunday, Jul 24,2022 01:13:50
 

The logs go on quite extensively  and as mentioned above, it happens especially frequently in Division 2. (Yes, it was at 1ish in the morning lol)

[Netduma Fraser]

It's unlikely to be an attack but there is no harm in trying, you can use Adblocker to block the IP address and then see if it stops happening.