Vodafone TV multicast settings on pfSense?

Forums › Vodafone New Zealand › Vodafone TV multicast settings on pfSense?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13

121 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 30

Reply # 1112032 20-Aug-2014 13:02

I'd add the PCP settings to your WAN rule allowing inbound traffic from the Vodafone address.

I'd also create another rule with PCP marking in the LAN allowing all traffic from 192.168.1.7 to 224.0.0.0/4 and the Vodafone address.

Once you've done this, try restarting the STB and checking the logs on pfsense.

kenkeniff

563 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 89

Reply # 1112203 20-Aug-2014 16:27

Trying different PCP settings doesn't seem to make a noticeable difference; but could well be the issue.

I've gone back to basics by unplugging everything else and just working on trying to get a clear picture streaming on PC.

Currently best I get is distorted picture and intermittent sound with the following settings:

Coil

6175 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1895

Trusted

Reply # 1112209 20-Aug-2014 16:35

2 people support this post

I couldn't tell you nor know the whole IP range of the IP TV service. Who is to say they change tomorrow or next week? I have some funny feeling about the VM setup. I thought you were running a machine with PF sense not via VM..

Edit: Network engineer next to me shook his head when he saw the Free BSD + Hyper-V.

nigelj

856 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 125

Reply # 1112232 20-Aug-2014 16:54

One person supports this post

TimA: I couldn't tell you nor know the whole IP range of the IP TV service. Who is to say they change tomorrow or next week? I have some funny feeling about the VM setup. I thought you were running a machine with PF sense not via VM..

Edit: Network engineer next to me shook his head when he saw the Free BSD + Hyper-V.

I'm also dubious of the VM setup (especially since based on the previous posts it's actually Windows 8+VMWare (not Hyper-V) then pfSense (FreeBSD) in a VM), in fact I want to cry.

Try pfSense on bare metal, or consider getting something like the EdgeRouter-Lite (although I'm not sure what it's multicast is like, haven't played with it personally)

hio77

'That VDSL Cat'
8898 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1953

Trusted

Spark

Subscriber

Reply # 1112236 20-Aug-2014 17:00

nigelj:
TimA: I couldn't tell you nor know the whole IP range of the IP TV service. Who is to say they change tomorrow or next week? I have some funny feeling about the VM setup. I thought you were running a machine with PF sense not via VM..

Edit: Network engineer next to me shook his head when he saw the Free BSD + Hyper-V.

I'm also dubious of the VM setup (especially since based on the previous posts it's actually Windows 8+VMWare (not Hyper-V) then pfSense (FreeBSD) in a VM), in fact I want to cry.

Try pfSense on bare metal, or consider getting something like the EdgeRouter-Lite (although I'm not sure what it's multicast is like, haven't played with it personally)

for testing, i see no issue apart from performance with running in a VM.

Assuming Workstations is configured correctly and supported/enabled features, Virtualization is still via VT-d - infact my system outright bluescreens if you virtualize in Workstations without VT-d

for an permanent router replacement Though, i agree, dedicate it to another box.

#include <std_disclaimer>

Any comments made are personal opinion and do not reflect directly on the position my current or past employers may have.

Coil

6175 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1895

Trusted

Reply # 1112240 20-Aug-2014 17:04

Lol, Its VM Ware. I cringed when i saw the VM too. PF Sense needs to be run on bare metal yes..

kenkeniff

563 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 89

Reply # 1112249 20-Aug-2014 17:12

Perhaps you guys could provide a little more rational rather than just being 'dubious'; as to why a VM running on a Dual 6-core Xeon server with 32GB RAM, quad Gigabit NIC etc would perform any more poorly than a HG659?

Most of the internet runs on VMs, I'm getting full speed tests & latency (200/50 <4ms) from other boxes connected through pfSense and did have VFTV streaming at one point last night + HD stream on my PC.

If there is an actual issue with pfSense in VM I would like to know more however currently I think it's more likely due to my limited understanding of multicast and dodgy config.

hio77

'That VDSL Cat'
8898 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1953

Trusted

Spark

Subscriber

Reply # 1112251 20-Aug-2014 17:18

TimA: Lol, Its VM Ware. I cringed when i saw the VM too. PF Sense needs to be run on bare metal yes..

VMware workstations, thus my shortening to workstations..

you know what i spend all day playing with from the VMware range Tim.. be it a different product from their range.. VMware can push performance when setup right..

but yes, not the best environment for a performance application..

#include <std_disclaimer>

Any comments made are personal opinion and do not reflect directly on the position my current or past employers may have.

nigelj

856 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 125

Reply # 1112255 20-Aug-2014 17:25

hio77:
nigelj:
TimA: I couldn't tell you nor know the whole IP range of the IP TV service. Who is to say they change tomorrow or next week? I have some funny feeling about the VM setup. I thought you were running a machine with PF sense not via VM..

Edit: Network engineer next to me shook his head when he saw the Free BSD + Hyper-V.

I'm also dubious of the VM setup (especially since based on the previous posts it's actually Windows 8+VMWare (not Hyper-V) then pfSense (FreeBSD) in a VM), in fact I want to cry.

Try pfSense on bare metal, or consider getting something like the EdgeRouter-Lite (although I'm not sure what it's multicast is like, haven't played with it personally)

for testing, i see no issue apart from performance with running in a VM.

Assuming Workstations is configured correctly and supported/enabled features, Virtualization is still via VT-d - infact my system outright bluescreens if you virtualize in Workstations without VT-d

for an permanent router replacement Though, i agree, dedicate it to another box.

Not to go too offtopic here, but I'm pretty sure you are refering to VT-x (vmx flag), VT-d is the Directed I/O extension (which would actually be useful here as it could help avoid emulated interrupts, I'm not familiar with VMWare's method here, I've only ever studied the KVM methods at this depth), additionally based on my experience SRIOV is most helpful in network-heavy virtualization tasks.

chrispchikin

121 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 30

Reply # 1112257 20-Aug-2014 17:35

Pfsense can run on a pentium 2.

I used to run it on and ESXi 3.5 with a pentium 4 and had absolutely no performance issues.

The OP is not seeing any performance bottlenecks either.

The top firewall vendors all have products which run in virtual environment (CheckPoint, Palo Alto, F5).

As such I do not believe virtualisation would be causing any issues here and I think it is perfectly fine to be running pfsense as a VM.

hio77

'That VDSL Cat'
8898 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1953

Trusted

Spark

Subscriber

Reply # 1112259 20-Aug-2014 17:36

nigelj:
hio77:
nigelj:
TimA: I couldn't tell you nor know the whole IP range of the IP TV service. Who is to say they change tomorrow or next week? I have some funny feeling about the VM setup. I thought you were running a machine with PF sense not via VM..

Edit: Network engineer next to me shook his head when he saw the Free BSD + Hyper-V.

I'm also dubious of the VM setup (especially since based on the previous posts it's actually Windows 8+VMWare (not Hyper-V) then pfSense (FreeBSD) in a VM), in fact I want to cry.

Try pfSense on bare metal, or consider getting something like the EdgeRouter-Lite (although I'm not sure what it's multicast is like, haven't played with it personally)

for testing, i see no issue apart from performance with running in a VM.

Assuming Workstations is configured correctly and supported/enabled features, Virtualization is still via VT-d - infact my system outright bluescreens if you virtualize in Workstations without VT-d

for an permanent router replacement Though, i agree, dedicate it to another box.

Not to go too offtopic here, but I'm pretty sure you are refering to VT-x (vmx flag), VT-d is the Directed I/O extension (which would actually be useful here as it could help avoid emulated interrupts, I'm not familiar with VMWare's method here, I've only ever studied the KVM methods at this depth), additionally based on my experience SRIOV is most helpful in network-heavy virtualization tasks.

quite possibly, didnt take the time to double check in not mixing the two up as im on my phone..

there are plenty of extensions there to help out, point being though, if your not ticking all the boxes, yes its going to slow right down.

oh and KVM.. scrapping the project we have been doing on there, just doesn't preform quite as well for what we use it for as ESXi does.. theres a right tool for every task i suppose...

#include <std_disclaimer>

Any comments made are personal opinion and do not reflect directly on the position my current or past employers may have.

Coil

6175 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1895

Trusted

Reply # 1112263 20-Aug-2014 17:39

When i was load balancing i tried PF Sense in Hyper-V server (Not the client on Server 2008 R2 the actual Hyper-V OS)
Ran like a bag of crap even on a high spec PC. As soon as i installed PF sense on the machine itself it was fine.

hio77

'That VDSL Cat'
8898 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1953

Trusted

Spark

Subscriber

Reply # 1112267 20-Aug-2014 17:43

TimA: When i was load balancing i tried PF Sense in Hyper-V server (Not the client on Server 2008 R2 the actual Hyper-V OS)
Ran like a bag of crap even on a high spec PC. As soon as i installed PF sense on the machine itself it was fine.

in my personal experience, Windows HyperV has always been a little iffy..

if your planning on running a bunch of important things on the same machine, ild look at going with something like ESXi (or a KVM etc Variant) then run windows ontop of that..

Likely it will be the best mix of performance.

As mentioned earlier though, for a router, i wouldnt be too keen to be "timesharing" with other Systems.

#include <std_disclaimer>

Any comments made are personal opinion and do not reflect directly on the position my current or past employers may have.

chrispchikin

121 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 30

Reply # 1112268 20-Aug-2014 17:44

Yes, that's Hyper-V ;) plus OP's performance is awesome otherwise...

OmniouS

294 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 24

Lifetime subscriber

Reply # 1112273 20-Aug-2014 17:55

TimA: When i was load balancing i tried PF Sense in Hyper-V server (Not the client on Server 2008 R2 the actual Hyper-V OS)
Ran like a bag of crap even on a high spec PC. As soon as i installed PF sense on the machine itself it was fine.

PFsense 2.1.x and below are based on FreeBSD 8.3 and below which doesn't have true Hyper-V support, proper synthetic drivers etc so this is expected.

The upcoming 2.2 release will be based on FreeBSD 10 which does have Hyper-V support so expect far better performance when it is released.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13