Eric,
Thank you for explanation.
Would it be possible to implement Traffic Monitoring/Statistics for LAN (br-lan) interface? Or per-VLAN basis?
DD-Wrt and Tomato are capable to provide traffic monitoring for LAN (br0).
See screenshot http://vplessky.blogspot.com/2010/11/to ... th_02.html
BR,
Vadim
P.S. TP-Link WR841ND router, which I plan to use for WDS and LAN, is not supported by DD-Wrt or Tomato at a moment.
So I ned to get it working with OpenWrt/LuCI or Gargoyle.
Thanks a lot for your help!
bandwidth usage
Moderator: Moderators
Re: bandwidth usage
I have posted screenshot to my blog how bandwidth monitoring on br0 interface works / looks like in TomatoUSB firmware.
It seems LAN traffic is monitored and displayed correctly.
Would it be possible to implement similar Bandwidth Monitoring for LAN (bridge br0) in Gargoyle?
It seems LAN traffic is monitored and displayed correctly.
Would it be possible to implement similar Bandwidth Monitoring for LAN (bridge br0) in Gargoyle?
Re: bandwidth usage
From Gargoyle FAQ:
1) bandwidth between local hosts on a LAN is almost always plentiful and cheap
That's correct. BUT: I need to monitor traffic between LAN ports (and Wi-Fi interfaces) in order to test several variants of deployment scenarios.
If you have Windows PC, it's rather difficult to understand what is real transfer rate to/out of Windows PC, either via Wired or Wireless connection.
And I can't avoid using Windows PCs for some networks, as some people are sticked to their Windows XP.
(like teachers in my kid's school)
It would take some time to move them to Linux, and this would not happen in one day
2) Bandwidth to remote hosts, however tends to be slow and expensive. You have to pay a monthly fee for your internet connection and many ISPs are now implementing bandwidth caps
I moved to Unlimited tariff with my ISP. I have symmetric 15Mbit/sec. to Internet, and 100Mbit to provider's local network
This allows to upload on average 60GB per day via Torrent. I don't need that much for downloading.
Therefor cost of bandwidth is not a limitation at all.
At least I do not think that WAN has some preference over LAN.
3) bandwidth monitor takes up memory and disk space proportional to the number of different things it is monitoring.
Typical router has 32MB of RAM. And at least 4MB of flash - if you are ready to spend at least $40 for your new router.
So in my opinion RAM or Flash is not a limitation at all.
4) one of deployment scenarios is when you have your Wireless Router (Access Pint) deployed as Access Point.
It can be AP (WDS), Client, Client (WDS), Repeater.
To implement WDS, you need at least two devices.
If you have separate router looking into WAN - you don't need:
Firewall, PPPoE, PPTP, L2TP
functionality on firmware for those Wireless clients.
I guess it would be possible to have anotehr version of firmware for the same platform, where those packages are stripped, and more functional Monitoring/Testing packages are added.
What do you think about this proposal?
P.S. I post this comment following my answer on OpenWrt forum
Let me comment on points aboveWhy do you only report bandwidth usage on the WAN interface? All the other firmwares allow me to monitor ALL the interfaces!
This was a well thought-out decision, and there are several reasons for this. Basically, bandwidth between local hosts on a LAN is almost always plentiful and cheap. Typically one person/organization owns all of the hardware and networking cable involved. Bandwidth to remote hosts, however tends to be slow and expensive. You have to pay a monthly fee for your internet connection and many ISPs are now implementing bandwidth caps. It is therefore almost always more useful to know how much bandwidth is being used on the WAN interface rather than on the local network or the combined bandwidth.
Of course, if there wasn't a trade-off involved there would be no reason not to include all interfaces. However, the bandwidth monitor takes up memory and disk space proportional to the number of different things it is monitoring. In order to be able to monitor static ips, upload qos classes and download qos classes a lot of memory is necessary and will strain the limits of some systems. The reason other interfaces are not monitored is because I think it is usually more useful to have more complete data on the WAN interface than significantly less data on all the interfaces.
1) bandwidth between local hosts on a LAN is almost always plentiful and cheap
That's correct. BUT: I need to monitor traffic between LAN ports (and Wi-Fi interfaces) in order to test several variants of deployment scenarios.
If you have Windows PC, it's rather difficult to understand what is real transfer rate to/out of Windows PC, either via Wired or Wireless connection.
And I can't avoid using Windows PCs for some networks, as some people are sticked to their Windows XP.
(like teachers in my kid's school)
It would take some time to move them to Linux, and this would not happen in one day
2) Bandwidth to remote hosts, however tends to be slow and expensive. You have to pay a monthly fee for your internet connection and many ISPs are now implementing bandwidth caps
I moved to Unlimited tariff with my ISP. I have symmetric 15Mbit/sec. to Internet, and 100Mbit to provider's local network
This allows to upload on average 60GB per day via Torrent. I don't need that much for downloading.
Therefor cost of bandwidth is not a limitation at all.
At least I do not think that WAN has some preference over LAN.
3) bandwidth monitor takes up memory and disk space proportional to the number of different things it is monitoring.
Typical router has 32MB of RAM. And at least 4MB of flash - if you are ready to spend at least $40 for your new router.
So in my opinion RAM or Flash is not a limitation at all.
4) one of deployment scenarios is when you have your Wireless Router (Access Pint) deployed as Access Point.
It can be AP (WDS), Client, Client (WDS), Repeater.
To implement WDS, you need at least two devices.
If you have separate router looking into WAN - you don't need:
Firewall, PPPoE, PPTP, L2TP
functionality on firmware for those Wireless clients.
I guess it would be possible to have anotehr version of firmware for the same platform, where those packages are stripped, and more functional Monitoring/Testing packages are added.
What do you think about this proposal?
P.S. I post this comment following my answer on OpenWrt forum