but what's really really weird is that, even though i'm using the "test_LAN_triple-isolate__piece_of_cake.qos" on LAN (eth0) (the ethernet ports, separated from the wifis/wlans)... The download/ingress IS my download. It's not flipped as it should be, according to its directions and practically any other thing I've tried. I suppose that since it's advertised as a LAN-issued script, two negatives make a positive somehow? haha either way I'm very pleased.
I'm using "test_WAN_triple-isolate__piece_of_cake.qos:" on the actual WLAN port (eth1), and that's working just how it should, with ingress as the download... I spent a lot of nights trouble shooting this, finally got the reward
#sm: flip upload and download bandwith so that the GUI values reflect directionality in regard to the ISP
#sm: NOTE this is ugly and should be performed in defaults.sh or functions.sh if at all
#sm: but for quick and dirty testing this should do
local ORIG_UPLINK=${UPLINK}
local ORIG_DOWNLINK=${DOWNLINK}
UPLINK=${ORIG_DOWNLINK}
DOWNLINK=${ORIG_UPLINK}
The LAN scripts really just differ from normal scripts in this hidden flip so from the end user's perspective the GUI fields' direction matches their naming (I was just getting tired of explaining the flipping over and over again). For the dual-isolation options the script also adjusts the sdual-rchost/dual-dsthost keywords for the effective directionality, but for triple-isolate that should not matter. But please note that it still is recommended to add the "nat" keywords to both ingress and egress advanced option strings...
Maybe it would help if you could post both the output of:
cat /etc/config/sqm
tc -s qdisc
And the following keywords should work better in combination with the nat keyword:
srchost | dsthost | hosts | dual-srchost | dual-dsthost | triple-isolate
only the dual and triple optins will also attempt per-flow fairness for the different IPs (okay triple is a bit more complicated, but it will still maintain per-flow fairness)
I honestly see the behavior that I would like to see, given my internet connection line (which is sub-par at best) - given all my trials and errors. But the commands you have given me, the dangerous/advanced options included! have ended up working out for the BEST POSSIBLE lowest bufferbloat, while others are using the internet or not. And it is thanks to YOUR HELP, moeller0, AND the eduperez as well. I was very hesitant, until eduperez told me to just un-bridge and not mess with VLANS, and the rest of the options and such, a little bit of forum browsing along with your instructions (moeller0), I thank you both for your support and helpful efforts. As they have concluded and affirmed results.
I'm sorry, I'll try to explain.
My WAN interface protocol is PPoE.
My LAN interface is Static Address.
If I untick bridge, only the LAN "eth0. 1" is working so I have to create a new LAN interface for the wireless part. Correct? What is the protocol I have to use for this new interface?
I hope I made myself clear.
Well, what protocol do you want for the WLAN? Why did you take it of the bridge, and what do plan to do now?
And the most important question: what does this have to do with the original subject here?
