RV320 Performance Degrades When Using Bandwidth Management

[alippiatt]

My situation is similar to that posted here:

https://supportforums.cisco.com/discussion/12148476/rv320-performance-degraded-when-activating-bandwidth-management

In my scenario, it's easy to duplicate (firmware version 1.2.1.14).

Commonalities:

1. Always use speedtest.net to measure internet bandwidth

2. Always use the same computer for testing

Scenarios (speed results are rounded to keep it simple):

1. Computer directly into cable modem.
Result: Down = 62 Mbps / Up = 6 Mbps

2. Computer into LAN1 on RV320 and WAN1 from RV320 to cable modem. Start from factory default, build WAN1 internet connection and DHCP server.
Result: Down = 62 Mbps / Up = 6 Mbps

3. Same physical and router setup as #2 above, but now adding Bandwidth management. WAN1 Up set to 5700 Kbps and Down set to 57000 Kbps. Change Type to Priority and setup just one rule. I created a service for TCP port 5060 and enabled it as High Priority on the Download side.
Result: Down = 18 Mbps / Up = 6 Mbps.

4. Same steps as #3, except enable it for the Upload side instead of the Download side.
Result: Down = 62 Mbps / Up = 2 Mbps.

5. Just to be sure, combine steps #3 and #4 so you have TCP port 5060 enabled for both the Upload and Download sides.
Result: Down = 18 Mbps / Up = 2 Mbps.

6. As a control, disable or delete the bandwidth rules.
Results: Down = 62 Mbps / Up = 6 Mbps

So, it is obvious that the priority setting is not entirely accurate. It is most certainly reserving a high amount of bandwidth. Now, in the post I linked above, this is stated:

"

I know I'm replying to an old thread but I have experienced the same result when I configure bandwidth management on the RV320.  I called Cisco support and found out that this is a limitation of the RV320:

"High Priority domain shares about 60% of the bandwidth, Low Priority domain shares 10% and Middle Priority (outside rules) shares 30%." These values are hardcoded and cannot be manipulated.

"

Now, can someone from Cisco confirm or deny this? Is this in fact not a true priority setting and instead a bandwidth reservation setting?

[Alan.Guggenheim]

Similar issue here: RV325. 400mb/s download becomes 20-50Mb/s if defining priority services.

[alippiatt]

I tried to contact Cisco's support on this. Here was their response:

Unfortunately, the product identified in your request is not covered under contract. An active service contract is required for TAC support.

This is unfortunate. From what I'm understanding, Cisco's documentation on this small business router is not forthcoming on how this feature actually works and Cisco is not willing to provide the answer unless I purchase a service contract.

I was hoping Cisco would respond in this forum, but that hasn't yet happened.

[alippiatt]

Doing more testing, the issue is similar if you use Rate Control as well. Using the examples above, I set a rate control for TCP port 5060 on just one IP address, an IP phone. I set the minimum rate as 32Kbps and max as 64Kbps for upstream and downstream. Here are the speedtest results:

Down = 16.17 Mbps / Up = 4.85 Mbps

Disable the rule:

Down = 61.74 Mbps / Up = 6.27 Mbps.

That doesn't compute properly to me. I even tried setting the max rate to 5700 and 57000 Kbps, respectively. That didn't make a difference.

So it seems, unfortunately, that this RV320 is reserving a significant portion of bandwidth no matter how you set the QoS rules.