Bandwidth limiting?

[tsunami2311]

I dont understand how those entries would cover 192.168.1.16 to 192.168.1.47, But I will give it a try, tommorow would you happen to know what entriest would be if I want to do xxx.xxx.xxx.9 to xxx.xxx.xxx.x50

Or explain to how
192.168.x.16/28
192.168.x.32/28

covers 16 to 47 when last one says 32? or point me to guide that would

 

[Nubble]

I dont understand how those entries would cover 192.168.1.16 to 192.168.1.47, But I will give it a try, tommorow would you happen to know what entriest would be if I want to do xxx.xxx.xxx.9 to xxx.xxx.xxx.x50

Or explain to how
192.168.x.16/28
192.168.x.32/28

covers 16 to 47 when last one says 32? or point me to guide that would

I'm sure many others here could explain this easier and better than I but I'll give it a try.

I'm presuming the IP addressing is being expressed in CIDR notation. As we know an IP4 address is 32bit binary expressed as 4 octets separated by periods. Additionally that address is associated to a binary subnet mask which determines which portion of the IP address defines the network and which portion defines the host within the network. CIDR is a form of binary summarization often used to define the network related portion of an IP address. You'll need to do some research to get into the details of subnets and how CIDR is used and expressed but in simple terms its binary math. Fortunately there are a variety of CIDR calculators available to use to ease the pain. Once you have a basic understanding you may find it easier to modify your configurations (i.e. your predefined DHCP ranges) to conform to binary boundaries.

While this is a huge oversimplification /24 would define 256 consecutive host addresses, /25 128 host addresses, /26 64 host addresses, /27 32 host addresses, /28 16 host addresses etc. The gotcha is that the associated IP address (subnet) must be divisible (i.e. on a bit boundary) by that number of hosts. As example 192.168.x.0 , 192.168.x.16 , 192.168.x.32 , 192.168.x.48 , 192.168.x.64 , 192.168.x.80 , 192.168.x.96 , 192.168.x.112 , 192.168.x.128 , 192.168.x.144 , 192.168.x.160 , 192.168.x.176 , 192.168.x.192 , 192.168.x.208 , 192.168.x.224 , 192.168.x.240 are all valid IP subnets that can be associated with a /28 CIDR notation as in each case the last octet is divisible by 16 and each would contain 16 consecutive host addresses.

 

[tsunami2311]

meh doing en of this seem to effect things out side of DHCP range I think I will just stick to manual puting the clients in the list for now

 

[wocram]

192.168.x.16/28
192.168.x.32/28

The above two entries would cover IP range 192.168.x.16-192.168.x.47 inclusive.

These two rules would not include 192.168.x.31 nor 192.168.x.32 so it is not covering the intended 192.168.x.16 - 192.168.x.47 range completely

 

[wocram]

meh doing en of this seem to effect things out side of DHCP range I think I will just stick to manual puting the clients in the list for now

Handy thing of having all clients separately in the QoS list is that you can switch the limiter of per device when needed.
Sure this is not possible when you have more then 32 devices connected (the maximum of the QoS list)

I have our Playstation 4 assigned and limited in bandwidth and when there is an update (which are regularly several GB's) I give it unlimited bandwidth when we go to sleep.

 

[Nubble]

These two rules would not include 192.168.x.31 nor 192.168.x.32 so it is not covering the intended 192.168.x.16 - 192.168.x.47 range completely

If you were to extend this logic then it would not include 192.168.x.16 or 192.168.x.47 either. In this case the presumption is this is not defining a subnet (with associated subnet and broadcast addresses) but merely a range. This type of summarization is used in routing tables. Whether is makes sense to use here is a matter of preference. As you stated in another post, in my case its more helpful to list hosts separately for QoS such that it gives me granular control. I do use and find this form of summarization helpful when defining host ranges for VPN routing.