One thing is for sure, it will never be in v6.
I was wondering why I had slow performance over IPv6 on my newly purchased hEX S and a gigabit connection - turns out the lack of IPv6 Fast Track is the culprit.
Adding my +1 to this feature request, as without it I’ve essentially downgraded when I switched from eero.
+1 please consider IPv6 FastTrack
Coming from Octeon EdgeRouters, lack of IPv6 offloading is a downgrade. +1 for IPv6 fasttrack and L3HW offloading on switch chips that support it.
Quite of a few of the switch chips do support IPv6. hAP AC2’s AR8327 for instance does. Hopefully we see IPv6 fasttrack make it onto these older units.
I would however settle for new models in similar price points with IPv6 acceleration out of the gate. I’m not that tied to the current models, it’s just that getting IPv6 speeds requires dramatically more hardware. Can’t sell a customer a 500Mbps internet service with IPv6 enabled on any of the ‘CPE’ level devices.
we must not confuse fast-track with offload (HW acceleration) they are different things
The practical differences are just where the packets get identified for hardware accell. ie, does the switch pluck them out and route them (hw accell…) or does the CPU identify what can be run through a hardware path and pass that to the switch (fast-track). In the end, for 99% it’s irrelevant.
this topic is for fast-track there is another topic for hw-accel
semantics. ipv6 at hw rates of the switch chips by any means. Everyone else get’s what the request is.
Then it is clear that you do not get it!
IPv6 fasttrack is not IPv6 routing at switch speeds!
It is an improvement over the current routing by using a method of shortcut around the many features provided by the router.
Thus certain thinks will not longer work, but packets for existing (tracked) connections can be routed faster.
This has NOTHING TO DO with L3 routing by switch chips, that is an entirely different animal, supported only on a couple of new devices, and restricting the functionality much more than fasttrack does. Most “users of internet at home” will not be able to use L3 accel, but they could use fasttrack.
Hi,
I heard rumors of my ISP finally beginning to understand that there is a need for supporting IPv6 for private customers. (yes they are horrible and there is severe lack of competition here, they are providing IPv6 already, but until now with severe restrictions)
So +1 for IPv6 fasttrack as I have lots of customer grade MT routers (HAP AC2, HAP AC3, HEX S, WAPac with LTE) on uplinks with several 100s of Mbps, currently running IPv4, but soon to be converted to primarily IPv6.
Ah and I have those routers in two cities with 2 million inhabitants each, so there are probably a few other MT routers to be found there.
Regards
W
+1
please consider IPv6 FastTrack
+1 for IPv6 Fasttrack!
Have you tried adding an IPv6 firewall rule under the “raw” category? This bypasses the connection tracking part of the firewall. Add two rules. First rule should be to match src addresses. Second rule to match dst address. Both rules should have action “no track”.
i think there is a problem with that approach because raw rule still catch and process all traffic, so it will not give the boost fast-track provides
for example:
ccr1036 8g 2s+ can forward almost 20gbps of internet traffic in routing mode with conn-tracking enabled and some ip firewall rules thanks to fast-track
ccr1036 8g 2s+ can forward almost 10gbps of internet traffic in routing mode with conn-tracking enabled and some ip firewall rules doing heavy Carrier Grade NAT thanks to fast-track
without fast-track you don’t achieve half of that
that’s the kind of improvement we are talking about
The only way to maximize ipv6 throughput on these is to have zero forward rules and no connection tracking. Without any sort of fast-path or hw accell it comes down to touching the packets the least and spending as little CPU time evaluating as possible. This is true of fast-path ipv4 as well really. Do some tests across a mipsbe board with fast track vs no forward rules and no connection tracking. it’s a pretty dramatic difference. Not as much as no rules vs passing the firewall chain down but pretty dramatic still. fast-path/track is just minimizing CPU processing but it’s still CPU.
I’d really love the whole suite, fast-track/path and hwaccel on supportable hardware for sure.
+1 for IPv6 fasttrack and L3HW offloading on switch chips that support it.
Add a +1 from me.
Currently the hEX-S is unusable for me with ros7 
I agree with you.
However, it will give you extra performance until the feature is implemented. Because you are matching traffic based on the src/dst addresses early on, you are skipping a lot of overhead.
how much extra performance you are talking about?
it is still standart track. should be same as no queue and no FW rule