Optimization for crazy-asymetric DOCSIS connection

RouterOS General
1

Hi,

I never liked slow internet connections, but well - sometimes life isn’t as perfect as it’s imagination :wink:
I’m now stuck for quite a while with 15/2 DOCSIS connection. While is rather OK for browsing the internet everyday trying to download anything using it is a horrible experience. As soon as I start downloading a file opening webpage becomes a challenge. Firstly I tried to explain to myself that my experience is affected by the fact I had 100/100 FTTB for few years, but it’s actually a real thing - opening this forum page took me 37s!
I don’t know DOCSIS stuff well (besides general terms and signal levels), but I think problem leads in upload - while file is downloaded trying to push anything out is a real problem.

Is there a way to make this connection usable? Even my 3G shared from smartphone is less fragile to downloading and browsing in the same time :confused:
Unfortunately there’s absolutely zero chance to get fiber here - the only alternative is another DOCSIS or even crappier ADSL.

2

So. We know how your connection should be. And how it is in real? What measurement have you did? What do you see in torch? Aren’t you participating to the dns ddos attack?
You can prioritise the traffic to let http go faster without drops.

3

i have a docsis 3.0 connection with a plan of 10/2 mbps, testing shows me really is 11/2.2 mbps

my qos setting is limited to 8250k/1800k to work well.

under any traffic (torrent 500 connections established) my ping to 8.8.8.8 is not affected

the traffic is marked on mangle to match 12 different queues on queue tree:

priority 1
ack
dns
icmp

priority 2
voip

priority 4
ipsec
dude
rdp

priority 5
http
other tcp and udp connections with little traffic

priority 6
http with big traffic (more than 1mbyte)
mail protocols

priority 7
other tcp and udp connections with big traffic (more than 1 mbyte)

4

Sorry guys for late response - I didn’t get any e-mail notification for that topic :frowning:

It’s close to what ISP declares (at least…). I measured it using standard speedtest.net + test to my own servers in various locations.

Nothing special - just upload/download sessions and usual DNS traffic.

Absolutely not - by default all of my routers are configured to reject all unknown inbound traffic :wink:

After digging I did something which is ekhem… maybe close to proper prioritetization:

/queue tree
add max-limit=2M name=QoS_WAN_Up parent=ether1-wan
add name=QoS_1 packet-mark=QoS_1_Up parent=QoS_WAN_Up priority=1
add name=QoS_2 packet-mark=QoS_2_Up parent=QoS_WAN_Up priority=2
add name=QoS_3 packet-mark=QoS_3_Up parent=QoS_WAN_Up priority=3
add name=QoS_7 packet-mark=QoS_7_Up parent=QoS_WAN_Up priority=7
add name=QoS_8 packet-mark=QoS_8_Up parent=QoS_WAN_Up
add name=QoS_4 packet-mark=QoS_4_Up parent=QoS_WAN_Up priority=4

/ip firewall mangle
add action=mark-packet chain=postrouting comment=QoS dst-port=80,443 new-packet-mark=QoS_1_Up \
    out-interface=ether1-wan packet-size=0-1024 passthrough=no protocol=tcp tcp-flags=syn
add action=mark-packet chain=postrouting dst-port=80,443 new-packet-mark=QoS_1_Up out-interface=\
    ether1-wan packet-size=0-1024 passthrough=no protocol=tcp tcp-flags=ack
add action=mark-packet chain=postrouting dst-port=53 new-packet-mark=QoS_1_Up out-interface=\
    ether1-wan passthrough=no protocol=udp
add action=mark-packet chain=postrouting connection-bytes=0-1000000 dst-port=80,443 new-packet-mark=\
    QoS_2_Up out-interface=ether1-wan passthrough=no protocol=tcp
add action=mark-packet chain=postrouting dst-port=110,995,143,993,25,20,21 new-packet-mark=QoS_2_Up \
    out-interface=ether1-wan packet-size=0-1024 passthrough=no protocol=tcp tcp-flags=syn
add action=mark-packet chain=postrouting dst-port=110,995,143,993,25,20,21 new-packet-mark=QoS_2_Up \
    out-interface=ether1-wan packet-size=0-1024 passthrough=no protocol=tcp tcp-flags=ack
add action=mark-packet chain=postrouting new-packet-mark=QoS_3_Up out-interface=ether1-wan \
    packet-size=0-1024 passthrough=no protocol=tcp tcp-flags=syn
add action=mark-packet chain=postrouting new-packet-mark=QoS_3_Up out-interface=ether1-wan \
    packet-size=0-1024 passthrough=no protocol=tcp tcp-flags=ack
add action=mark-packet chain=postrouting dst-port=110,995,143,993,25,20,21 new-packet-mark=QoS_4_Up \
    out-interface=ether1-wan passthrough=no protocol=tcp
add action=mark-packet chain=postrouting connection-bytes=1000000-0 dst-port=80,443 new-packet-mark=\
    QoS_4_Up out-interface=ether1-wan passthrough=no protocol=tcp
add action=mark-packet chain=postrouting new-packet-mark=QoS_8_Up out-interface=ether1-wan protocol=\
    tcp src-port=8730
add action=mark-packet chain=postrouting new-packet-mark=QoS_8_Up out-interface=ether1-wan p2p=\
    all-p2p passthrough=no
add action=mark-packet chain=postrouting new-packet-mark=QoS_7_Up out-interface=ether1-wan \
    passthrough=no

It only lacks priorities for IKE & IPSec.


Using following tree is somewhat stable, but all suggestions are welcome.

5

That is not crazy asymmetric. I had 500/15 for a while.

6

Vortex, you stated, [quote="vortex"I had 500/15 for a while.[/quote].

Do/did you work for TWC/Comcast, or any other cable company/ISP? How did you ever get 500 Mbps (and on what planet do they provide only 15 Mbps up with such a huge pipe down?). Was this an error, a modded modem, or business class account? Just interested in the “how” of what you stated, as I’d love to have those speeds!

TWC just deployed their “Maxx” services here last August, and the fastest available (with a 16 x 4 modem) is 300/20 Mbps. And the only reason TWC made these upgrades is because Google Fiber is coming to the area, and they want to pre-empt the defection they saw in Kansas City.

Hunt

7

and btw, did/do you ever have any problems with the docsis 3 modem interfacing with Mikrotik RouterOS products? I’ve had one hell of a time getting anywhere with TWC and Mikrotik engineers in regards to what appears to be extreme packet loss/bufferbloat/missequenced packets, or something similar. Here’s a link to a more full description of the problem, as I posted on this forum under a different topic/heading:

http://forum.mikrotik.com/t/need-help-with-network-traffic-problem/95002/1

Since posting this, I tried testing it on another DOCSIS 3.0 (16 x 4) modem (an Arris 1672, which a TWC tech brought), and had the same results as described on that previous post. I didn’t test this extensively (on the tech’s modem), but will try again here shortly on additional modem models.

-Hunt

8

Just a consumer in Europe. I had 250/15 (still too asymmetric), and they upgraded (marketing 500) to 500/15. They had to replace the cable box for this, to move from 8 to 16 DOCSIS 3.0 channels.

Some months later, they upgraded silently to 500/50, like for the business products.

All these upgrades were provided at no additional cost. Because they were competing since some time against 1000/100 FTTH and now 1000/1000.

And they are also competing against 100/20 VDSL2 vectoring with arguably better offer of TV channels and local support.

No problems interfacing.