Does QOS/bandwidth and QOS/application actually work

Pepwave MAX-BR1 running 6.2.2 build 1790
I have “individual bandwidth limit” set to 500K up and down and have set QOS/application so voip is high, tunneling is high all other normal

Behind the pepwave are five IP phones and a sonicwall. The phones connect over pepvpn to our data centers. The sonicwall has a point of sale system and guest wi-fi turned on.

The sonicwall is consistantly using 800K to 1300K uplink. How is this possible when individual limit set to 500K?
And why is application QOS not protecting voip?

So - is anyone else seeing this problem? Does QOS actually work in this firmware?
Should I try the beta firmware?

I am going to run into this in many locations. The two reasons for installing the pepwave are cellular backup and being able to provide QOS and protect bandwidth for voip, as I do not control the customer’s sonicwall.

I am pondering an enhancement request to be able to actually reserve some uplink bandwidth for the VPN connection. That might make more sense than just nebulous classifications in the application control. Since the actual ISP connection may be anything from a 3M down/1M up DSL to a 25M down/6M up or faster, it makes more sense to say “reserve 500K for the VPN” than setting a limit on other devices.

Anyone else want to chime in on this?


May I know the traffic for SonicWalls went through PepVPN tunnel or directly went to the internet?

1 Like

The traffic form the sonicwall goes directly to the internet.
The IP phones (which are directly behind the pepwave) go over the PEPvpn to our two data centers.
That is why I mentioned being able to reserve bandwidth for the pepvpn

Possible to open a support ticket for us to further investigate this ? So far, we don’t have similar case reported.

Bandwidth reserving for PepVPN traffics is not available now. We may open this for considerations. Any other having the same thought for the requested feature?

Thank You

1 Like

Hi jmpfas.
Unfortunately, QoS over Speedfusion has been broken for over a year and Peplink have indicated to me there is no plans in the works to fix it. I’ve had a case open on the subject for over six months now, and our network suffers because of it. If you’re as upset about this as we’re be sure to voice your concerns.

There is custom build available that limits bandwidth per host over Speedfusion and the internet at the same time. Its a workaround that might be able to assist given the lack of options. 6.2.3s021 build 2135

Sitloongs comments regarding not having any other cases is mistaken and I can provide correspondence and ticket numbers if you need it.

Has this been resolved in version 7, I have the need to do this today.

Any updates on this topic?

@Jonathan_Pitts, do you think Outbound Policy for SpeedFusion will work for you? Please find the the URL link below for more detail.

1 Like

It looks like the Outbound Policy only works for devices with multiple WAN connections. There’s no QoS for the PepVPN tunnel over a single WAN?
Does this mean the IPSec tunnels are actually better for piping voice traffic than the PepVPN ? At least IPSec has a QoS option…


Are there any news about that feature? I have big problems with single clients using the whole bandwidth through a Speedfusion/PepVPN-tunnel…

I cannot work with multiple subtunnels because not every branch office has two “good” WAN-connections.


7.1.1 includes this feature under QOS->application->optimize pepvpn traffic


That is nice, but that is not, what I need. 99% of my traffic is running through PepVPN/Speedfusion. I do not want to optimize the whole tunnel. I want to priorize traffic inside the tunnel.

At the moment, one user can congest the whole system with one session through Speedfusion…

This is exactly what my company needs as well. We need the ability to prioritize traffic within the tunnel as we run various types of traffic within the tunnel and need certain protocols, sources, or destinations to get a higher level of service than others. We work around this with multiple speedfusion tunnels but it doesn’t work well when a site has a single connection or multiple low quality connections.

1 Like

Yes – there is a need for both. Some people (like me) have a lot of non-vpn traffic. In my case (pizza restaurants), public wifi can totally congest the WAN. The only thing running over the speedfusion is the VoIP, which uses a small amount of bandwidth.
so I needed to prioritise the VPN tunnel itself over the non-vpn WAN traffic

But others have a lot of mixed traffic over the VPN and need to prioritize within the tunnel.

Perhaps the application/bandwidth control can be changed to allow you to select it applying to wan/cellular/vpn (per vpn profile)

That would fit with a request I have made previously: I really want to be able to set different application priorities for WAN vs CELL, with an additional “blocked” prioroity

i.e. “file sharing/transfer” is priority LOW on WAN and BLOCKED on CELL.

If you could also set those priorities for different vpn tunnels that satisfies your need as well.

John Scully

1 Like