I want to seperate node traffic from own traffic to priorize it on my fritzbox. I have 2 NICs installed one built in, the other via a pcie card. I wanted to route the traffic via port forwarding. Like open storj ports on NIC2, the traffic should flow through NIC2. The problem is, NIC1 has some ports enabled in the fritzbox, when enabling ports on NIC2, the fritzbox assign them to NIC1 instead as well, instead of NIC2. I did some research, and found out, fritzbox assign the ports more likey to a device instead of a NIC, when the same device has several NICs. So this seem to be a failed attempt. Is there some other way, to route storj traffic through a different NIC? I want to priorize it, so if storj is using my full bandwidth (upload), I still can use it for more important stuff like my nextcloud etc.
You can definitely bind the node to a specific interface (and even separate vlan), and configure QoS/traffic shaping, but doing it this way would be labor intensive, fragile, and waste bandwidth..
SQM is the modern way to accomplish what you want, without wasting anything, and barely any configuration.
If your router does not support SQM — replace it, because it’s an ancient crap nobody should be using.
My router (FritzBox) has something like SQM which works good. The Problem is, for example, my Nextcloud port is forwarded on NIC1 which will be the NIC for my private traffic, but when port forward the storj port on NIC2, which will be the storj NIC, the router assigns the forwarded port to NIC1 aswell instead of NIC2. The problem is that the router maps more likely to devices instead of NICs, this seem to be an common issue. So I think I need either a software solution on the Server itself, or build a openwrt etc. an put it in between. Last option would be, to use 2 servers, one for me one for storj, which is not the best way.
The fritzbox has a guest network which works like a vlan, but this network cant be port forwarded and some ports are blocked for security reasons by the router itself which can’t be changed, so this is the only option I have which is similar to a vlan. I don’t knwo if there are any firtzbox specialists here.
If you have SQM working, you don’t need to explicitly prioritize traffic. Therefore, you don’t neeed to separate it anymore. (Sorry if this sounds dumb, i’m tired and maybe missing somethign obvious..). Do you still see issues with SQM enabled?
I think I misunderstood, my fritzbox supports priorization, but no SQM, looks like, they offer lots of functions, which are interesting for most of the users like an own eco system, but when it comes to the real stuff like such features, it seem not to be important enough to implement. The router isn’t that old and not really “crap” to be thronw out. Is there a way to tinker a own one like a pfsense “box”, to put in between?
Yeah, I guess you can stick OpenWRT or PFSense based contraption upstream of your fritz box (that’s how I initially experimented with SQM, when my main router was Sophos XG firewal; Following the experiemnt, I promptly defenestrated Sophos and bought ubiquiti… it was the only commercial solution that had implemented SQM properly at a time. Today many vendors offer it, even asus; SQM is mindblowing, there is no going back to messign with QoS rules…I’m surprised Fitzbox does not offer it. On the other hand if this is provider issued equipment they have negative incentive to do so – because they’d rather sell you more bandwidth, that will help as a side effect. )
fritzbox is provides routers for providers, but not mainly, you can buy them unbranded, they offer an easy overall usage, with their own ecosystem (phones, smart plugs etc.), all controlled locally by the router, no chinese server controlling your wifi plug. They offer some functions like ingress shaping priorization, but that’s almost it, unfortunately they don’t offer the more tech savvy things. Maybe no demand in the marked they supply.
I’ll go with a pfsense “contraption”, so I have something new to learn and tinker with, since I use Cable/DOCSIS, and it seems to be a narrow supply of Modem/Routers.
I have 3 internet connections atm. ISP provided routers (2 of them FritzBox) just forwarding traffic to a pfSense mini pc where all the network management is done. Its another 10 watt of power consumtion but having a fully featured firewall is worth it.
SQM effectively requires considerable hardware upgrades compared to usual cheap routers used by consumer ISPs. I could have turned SQM on on my previous router, or the ISP router I have to use now, but both would become bottlenecked by CPU processing traffic at <100Mbps. These devices have very slow CPUs.
Generally, SQM is only necessary at much lower speeds; at higher bandwidths, close to the design capacity of the network equipment, where the bufferbloat is less of an issue in the first place, SQM provides diminishing returns.
Anecdotally, when I had 12Mbps upstream, and was backing up data 24/7 fully saturating connection 24/7, SQM was a must to keep latency low. Without it, it was not uncommon to see 2000-4000ms latency spikes.
Now I have 40Mbps upstream, and while SQM still does almost halve the latency, the benefits are not as dramatic.
I’m surprised your routers can’t support 100Mbps with SQM though – my gateway uses off the shelf 4-core 1.7GHz Arm A57, and turning SQM on while downloading at 1000Mbps adds about 20% extra CPU utilization.
I guess it depends a lot on the algorithm used and quality of implementation.
But either way – if the router cannot keep up with what you want - replace the router.
What do you mean have to? How can provider force equipment on you? If this is their combo ONT/router or DOCSIS/Router – then you shall be able to configure it as a bridge to only provide connectivity and use eqipment that works for you. Otherwise you are throwing money down the drain paying for bandwidth and latency you can’t use.
Support. If the connection is down, they refuse to debug it if they can’t log into their own hardware. I can’t be bothered switching all the time, and I don’t see much of value having a separate downstream box at this point, because except for SQM, their router is good enough. As you said, for a 1000/300 link SQM is thankfully less necessary, though try downloading updates for some of these new MMORPG games… or, curiously, ollama models, and not see latency degradation
How often is your connection down for this to be an issue…
Can you not keep it, but turn off routing/masquarading/firewall? That would be win win
Funny anecdote. Sometimes I work from home, and connect via corp VPN. Downloading stuff from corp network is faster at home! Because in the office I have gigabit lan, and at home — 1.2Gbps internet
But I don’t see any ill effects saturating it without SQM. Maybe your gateway bottlenecks even without sqm?
Every few months. Talked to a technician once, local hobos keep stealing cables Usually when I’m not at home, so I’d have to instruct family members how to deal with it.
And keeping both devices on? Waste of electricity and space in my networking closet.
Maybe. Got folks to understand they gotta check first if I have any videoconferencing before they run updates
Depends. I did some research and SQM ins’t the only thing a pfsense “box” can provide. In my case I want to seperate IoT devices from the Main network via VPN, do some reverse proxy things. If this all works out, 10 extra watts are worth it.
Usually when I’m not at home, so I’d have to instruct family members how to deal with it.
