Project

General

Profile

Actions

Bug #6434

closed

Captive Portal upstream bandwidth restrictions not enforced

Added by Nick Peelman over 8 years ago. Updated over 8 years ago.

Status:
Not a Bug
Priority:
Normal
Assignee:
-
Category:
Captive Portal
Target version:
-
Start date:
06/01/2016
Due date:
% Done:

0%

Estimated time:
Plus Target Version:
Release Notes:
Affected Version:
Affected Architecture:

Description

I have configured a captive portal and set download and upload speed limits. The downstream limit works as intended. Clients aren't allowed more speed than what I configure.

Upstream doesn't seem to care though. If it set the upload restriction to 5Mbps (5000Kbps), I can still get 60+Mbps up. Is this a bug in the portal implementation, or a limitation of something further up the BSD stack?

I am not using authentication, just a simple clickthrough agreement.

Actions #1

Updated by Chris Buechler over 8 years ago

  • Status changed from New to Not a Bug

no apparent issues. With no auth, on 2.3.1_1.

At 500 Kb up and down:
http://www.speedtest.net/my-result/5371474771

At 5000 Kb up and down:
http://www.speedtest.net/my-result/5371488960

At 50000 Kb up and down:
http://www.speedtest.net/my-result/5371498082

Actions #2

Updated by Nick Peelman over 8 years ago

Figured it out; when changing bandwidth limits, you seem to have to restart the captive portal instance/zone/service. That is non-obvious from the interface. A hint alongside those input boxes would be helpful to future users. Or have the instance/zone/service restart itself when those values change.

So we can either turn this into a feature request or todo (I don't seem to be able to edit the original ticket) or it can be closed.

Thanks for your assistance!

Actions #3

Updated by Chris Buechler over 8 years ago

You don't have to restart it. It only applies to new sessions, so you have to disconnect any existing if you want it applied. That's just the nature of it, often people don't want to disconnect everyone immediately when changing the limit, so it's correct as-is.

Actions #4

Updated by Nick Peelman over 8 years ago

That wasn't the behavior I was seeing; but I was also knee deep in a dozen other fires most of the day, so I could be wrong. Mea Culpa.

Actions

Also available in: Atom PDF