Direction mismatch in ingress/egress traffic rate limiting?
Our WAN link is 1000/50 Mbps. For testing purposes I have limited the ingress and egress rates for interface ether9 on a CRS326 switch with RouterOS 7.0beta5, i.e.:
/interface ethernet switch port print
Columns: NAME, SWITCH, INGRESS-RATE, EGRESS-RATE, STORM-RATE
NAME SWITCH INGRESS- EGRESS- STO
0 ether1 switch1 100
1 ether2 switch1 100
2 ether3 switch1 100
3 ether4 switch1 100
4 ether5 switch1 100
5 ether6 switch1 100
6 ether7 switch1 100
7 ether8 switch1 100
8 ether9 switch1 20.0Mbps 2.0Mbps 100
...
>
Then on the PC attached to ether9 I performed a traffic test to our own traffic server in WAN:
> ```text
$ iperf -e -c $SERVER_IN_WAN -p 8459 -P 3 -t 60
------------------------------------------------------------
Client connecting to XXXXXX, TCP port 8459 with pid 4643
Write buffer size: 128 KByte
TCP window size: 85.0 KByte (default)
------------------------------------------------------------
[ 4] local 192.168.30.1 port 56928 connected with 195.X.X.X port 8459 (ct=42.18 ms)
[ 5] local 192.168.30.1 port 56930 connected with 195.X.X.X port 8459 (ct=45.10 ms)
[ 3] local 192.168.30.1 port 56926 connected with 195.X.X.X port 8459 (ct=35.95 ms)
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth Write/Err Rtry Cwnd/RTT NetPwr
[ 4] 0.00-60.05 sec 36.2 MBytes 5.06 Mbits/sec 290/0 3 -1K/18726 us 33.80
[ 5] 0.00-60.05 sec 39.2 MBytes 5.48 Mbits/sec 314/0 3 -1K/9534 us 71.89
[ 3] 0.00-60.22 sec 37.9 MBytes 5.28 Mbits/sec 303/0 10 -1K/6359 us 103.71
[SUM] 0.00-60.22 sec 113 MBytes 15.8 Mbits/sec 907/0 16
Question:
IMO it is the iperf client that sends data to the iperf server,
ie. in this case the egress traffic should be rate-limited at 2Mbps.
But as the iperf throughput numbers indicate, it rather seems that the ingress traffic gets rate-limited at the defined 20Mbps.
Has someone an explanation for this IMO illogical behavior or discrepancy in the direction?
Or does perhaps MikroTik view/define "ingress" and "egress" from a different point of view?
Or have they possibly interchanged/mixed-up these two directions internally in the RouterOS software?
