100gbps rela traffic on CHR or Mikrotik Hardware??? Don’t think so.
Please look into it, you will find the issue. We contributed in last 18 months reporting a lot of issue on v7.
My idea is that the issue is related to default config for each route to use Hardware Offload, for the static I can chenge it but not for connected.
regards
Just noticed that pre 7.1 /routing pim is gone.
Guess there’s not “automagic upgrade path” with the new /routing/pimsm/ ?
There is no hardware offload support for x86. Those settings simply doesn’t do anything.
@Amm0: Thanks a lot for your feedback.
To receive data about LTE or 5G base stations, ROS v7 seems
to support Microsoft MBIM extension (MBIMEx v1),
at least request MBIM_CID_BASE_STATIONS_INFO, where for example
the MBIM_LTE_SERVING_CELL_INFO structure contains data about
CellID, EARFCN, RSRP, RSRQ, etc.
Moreover, the RSRQ parameter is described as an integer
(The range is -20 to -3, in units of 1dBm).
ROS shows this from -2.0 to -0.3; probably the issue on the ROS side.
RSRP shows ok.
RSSI differs from actual by ~ 30%
CA Band: line in WinBox is present, but it is empty.
Whether ROS v7 supports MBIMEx v2 or v3 I don’t know.
Perhaps CA, SINR, CQI will appear in the next extensions 
And of course, I still want to know what is behind the messages in the logs:
lte, info lte1 mbim: error: >>> E service: conn_ext, command: bs info, error: 12
IP firewall service-port (ALG) for QUIC protocol (HTTP3) is necessary.
Before I disable (reject in firewall) QUIC , whatsapp, messenger and many applications experience packet-loss and unacceptable jitter.
After I reject QUIC, connections fallback to TCP (HTTP2) and all connections are stable.
So I would ask you mikrotik guys to write QUIC ALG to keep connections alive. for example we could set different TIMEOUT for UDP 443 and UDP 80 and also something like keepalive mechanism may be implemented.
It is also possible to extract SNI information from QUIC protocol but I guess ROS will need to watch connections from the beginning. so The ALG could also do this job which is one of most-wanted features…
You don’t think, but it’s true. CHR is faster than x86 bare hardware. You have to start living in the now, not in the past.
https://stubarea51.net/2021/12/13/mikrotik-chr-breaking-the-100g-barrier/
I live were found confortable. But if you publish x86 v7 release you have to support them because we bought several L6 licences!!!
Moving to the faster and more modern CHR is free, email us, we will issue you license for CHR.
fix our issue first. We don’t have the time to test a completely new platforma after two years of v7 waiting.
then with calm we will go to investigate latest chr
It works for us here, there is nothing we can fix, most likely this is due to hardware incompatbilitiy with RouterOS kernel. We did not make the hardware, so there is no warranty. If you want warranty, please use products made by MikroTik.
may you looke at the supout before to say anything?
Working here is not an answer, application confioguration could araise bug you don’t see in you local application!
Give a look at supout!!!
please!!!
We did look, before your ticket was answered. Like always.
into the ticket I reported the availability of the routers to investigate directly over them because I was able to replicate the issue in lab.
will you not go to investigate?
Looks like some memory is not released after removing static routes.
I was adding and deleting about 30k static routes on CHR.
After just 3-4 cycles CHR died with:
[admin@RouterOS] > /log/print
08:23:57 system,error,critical kernel failure in previous boot
[admin@RouterOS] > /system/resource/print
uptime: 18m
version: 7.1 (testing)
build-time: Dec/01/2021 14:07:27
factory-software: 6.0
free-memory: 51.2MiB
total-memory: 96.0MiB
cpu: QEMU
cpu-count: 1
cpu-frequency: 3193MHz
cpu-load: 0%
free-hdd-space: 39.4MiB
total-hdd-space: 61.5MiB
write-sect-since-reboot: 1096
write-sect-total: 1097
architecture-name: x86_64
board-name: CHR
platform: MikroTik
I am trying to set up a hotspot with RouterOS 7.1…
The device has a valid certificate, that is configured in hotspot profile. Looks like port 443 is accessible for clients, but the server does not speak https.
Anybody else with a problem like this?
Making my own Thread
@Milecus, I’ll watch out that one on our Telit 960s. One thought on the error: do you have the GPS package installed, or have GPS searching enabled on the Telit? Google suggests “bs info” might be related to A-GPS.
Yup pretty close to what I see, it’s RSRP and RSRQ that don’t seem to show up MBIM mode & RSSI is similar skewed wrong.
While I can run a script in a loop, to read all this stuff better. The bad signal data isn’t exactly very end-user friendly for our customers if they had to use MT app/webfig.
Didn’t think about this until reading your post: the exact signal reporting behavor may also vary by specific carrier firmware – 4 different ones inside. I’ll try some SIMs & AT#FIRMWARE to see what effect that has on this. Been mainly using Verizon in US with them, but have AT&T and T-Mobile we can try. Verizon is generally weird… so maybe at least get same RSRP/RSRQ results as you with Generic or AT&T profile.
You’re kidding right?
Personally running V7 X86 ROS seems like a unnecessary risk - you really want to the the first person trying a specific chipset that may not have been test before with ROS? V7 still has issues on well-known hardware. Plus someone “looking at it” is likely only get a bug into a queue to get fixed… and since it may be chipset MT may not be familiar, likely not an easy one. Just saying this doesn’t seem like a good path.
Leave the hardware abstraction to a hypervisor. And VMWare is generally free and simply to setup, you follow the instructions on CHR.
It’s quite handy since you can do “snapshot” of RouterOS to rollback or forward upgrade pretty easily. Or, bring up a 2nd virtual router to try a new version. I have 0 complaints about CHR, although those are staying at 6.x for a bit longer myself.
It was maybe answered somewhere in this thread but I cannot find it: hAP ac2 units with 256MB RAM - can they benefit from ROS 7 in term of “wifiwave 2” package ?
Thanks !
No. Anything with 16MB storage cannot get wifiwave2 package. Bloated wifiwave2 package is here to stay unfortunately.