Community discussions

MikroTik App
 
go626201
just joined
Topic Author
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2019 11:52 am

Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Sun Jan 19, 2020 4:19 pm

Wireguard had been widely use by a lot of system. Speed Fast and stable for the vpn tunnel usage.
Cloudflare 1.1.1.1 Warp also using Wireguard as the tunnel for the argo tunnel.
 
alfredo
newbie
Posts: 42
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2015 3:06 pm

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Mon Jan 20, 2020 8:45 am

+1 for WireGuard. This thing is fast! Also, much easier to deploy than OpenVPN.
 
dnordenberg
newbie
Posts: 43
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2016 8:00 pm

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Mon Jan 20, 2020 7:03 pm

Would be really nice, bringing in some a fresh modern feeling and options...
Unfortunately to take full advantage of it you need a 5.6 kernel :(
Routeros 7 is on 4.14 as this is a super long LTS kernel. Wireguard just missed the 5.5 which is expected to be the next super long LTS kernel so for routeros we probably have to wait for the next super long LTS which include WG and that would probably be like 5.13-14 in 2 years :( And even after that it will probably take a while for mikrotik to adopt the new LTS kernel, they just adopted 4.14 which is already 2 years old so looking back it could be at least 2+2 years before we even see a WG kernel in routeros. If mikrotik don't decide to use the compat WG instead which could run on legacy kernels. I have no idea what the backside is of doing that instead of using a kernel with built in WG support...
 
Sob
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
Posts: 6303
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2009 9:11 pm

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Tue Jan 21, 2020 3:49 am

If I understand it correctly, "compat" version of WG are simply backports to older kernels, so there shouldn't be any problem. Call me an optimist, but if WG continues to get popular, and if other things with RouterOS 7 go well, I believe that we can see WG in RouterOS before Christmas (yes, this year, but no, I probably wouldn't bet on it, my optimism has some limits ;)).
People who quote full posts should be spanked with ethernet cable. Some exceptions for multi-topic threads may apply. Not intended as incentive for masochists.
 
User avatar
eworm
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
Posts: 724
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2014 9:23 am
Location: Oberhausen, Germany
Contact:

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Tue Jan 21, 2020 1:31 pm

The compat version (https://git.zx2c4.com/wireguard-linux-compat/) is the same as what goes into Linux 5.6, it's just the out-of-tree repository.
Manage RouterOS scripts and extend your devices' functionality: RouterOS Scripts
 
joda58
just joined
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2017 4:39 pm

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Wed Jan 22, 2020 4:48 pm

+1 for WireGuard.

Other routers are beginning to deliver...
I don't want to switch supplier.

/joda
 
go626201
just joined
Topic Author
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2019 11:52 am

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Wed Jan 22, 2020 7:39 pm

Hopefully ROS7 will include Wireguard within this year. :lol:
 
Wublide
just joined
Posts: 17
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2018 11:00 pm

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Wed Jan 22, 2020 8:57 pm

it would be a dream because now i have a routerboard+raspberry(wireguard) for every single sites of my fullmesh vpn
 
Mulat
just joined
Posts: 6
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2015 4:50 pm

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Sat Jan 25, 2020 1:50 pm

+1 for WireGuard.
 
User avatar
mozerd
Member
Member
Posts: 476
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2017 3:39 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Sat Jan 25, 2020 3:25 pm

it would be a dream because now i have a routerboard+raspberry(wireguard) for every single sites of my fullmesh vpn
Yes absolutely !!!
Dream along with me I am on the way to the STARS
 
User avatar
floaty
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 253
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2018 1:24 am
Location: 52°08'32.34"N 14°39'05.0"E

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Sat Jan 25, 2020 9:38 pm

I'm in.
+1 for WireGuard.
~~
We know what happens to people who stay in the middle of the road. They get run over.
 
erkexzcx
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Posts: 74
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2019 11:42 pm

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Sun Jan 26, 2020 11:48 am

+1. I also do have additional SBC next to Mikrotik router just for Wireguard VPN server.
 
User avatar
DmitryAVET
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 104
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 12:27 am
Location: Ukraine, Mukachevo
Contact:

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Sun Jan 26, 2020 3:58 pm

+1 for Wireguard https://www.wireguard.com/

MikroTik don't ignore us...

Keenetic allready have support WireGuard
https://help.keenetic.com/hc/ru/article ... eGuard-VPN
 
EchelonCA
just joined
Posts: 4
Joined: Thu May 10, 2018 4:54 am

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Tue Jan 28, 2020 6:00 pm

+1. The versatility that comes with wireguard, especially with roaming connections (i.e. swapping back and forth between mobile and wireless) is extremely useful, as well as the increased throughput provided by wireguard. It would be perfect to roll this in with rOS vs. having a separate appliance just to provide this functionality.
 
User avatar
eworm
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
Posts: 724
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2014 9:23 am
Location: Oberhausen, Germany
Contact:

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Wed Jan 29, 2020 10:43 am

Linus just pulled the net-next branch from David Miller, thus Wireguard is now upstream:
Merge git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/netdev/net-next
Manage RouterOS scripts and extend your devices' functionality: RouterOS Scripts
 
User avatar
osc86
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 112
Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2017 1:15 pm

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Wed Jan 29, 2020 6:12 pm

I really would like to have Wireguard Support in V7.
 
User avatar
rooted
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 124
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2020 5:58 pm

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Tue Feb 04, 2020 6:02 pm

+1 for wireguard, the performance can't be denied.
 
rooneybuk
newbie
Posts: 25
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2015 12:09 pm

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Wed Feb 05, 2020 11:12 am

+1 for WireGuard.

I believe this is a must going forward for RouterOS 7 its is become a major player in the VPN space
 
ahtoh
newbie
Posts: 37
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 3:10 pm

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Wed Feb 05, 2020 11:26 pm

Just bought another brand because Mikrotik is missing this feature.
https://www.gl-inet.com/products/gl-mv1000/
 
th0massin0
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 148
Joined: Sun May 11, 2014 4:16 am
Location: Poland

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Fri Feb 07, 2020 2:46 pm

It would be more than great if we get only one tcp or udp vpn that using certs for encryption, service port could be changed and have windows client (may be third-party).
 
syadnom
Member
Member
Posts: 477
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2011 7:29 am

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Sat Feb 15, 2020 1:12 am

just another vote for the fantastic wireguard kit..
 
User avatar
omidkosari
Trainer
Trainer
Posts: 639
Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2006 4:18 pm
Location: Iran , Karaj
Contact:

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Sun Feb 16, 2020 3:13 am

+1 for wireguard .
Please don't repeat the way you did with OpenVPN udp
Mikrotik Certified Trainer
 
User avatar
rooted
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 124
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2020 5:58 pm

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Sun Feb 16, 2020 5:41 am

+1 for wireguard .
Please don't repeat the way you did with OpenVPN udp
Wireguard is very simple compared to Ovpn, if I'm not mistaken it's only around 4000 lines of code.
 
msatter
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
Posts: 1984
Joined: Tue Feb 18, 2014 12:56 am
Location: Netherlands / Nīderlande

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Sun Feb 16, 2020 12:09 pm

He was writing OpenVPN UDP support by Mikrotik and not about OpenVPN itself.

A good alternative for now is IKEv2, in the time waiting for Wireguard being implemented by Mikrotik.
One RB4011 (cooled) and a RB760iGS (hEX S) in series. The 4011 Does PPPoE/IKEv2.
The cooler: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=138613&start=300#p799879
Running:
RouterOS 6.48beta58 / Winbox 3.27 64bits / MikroTik APP 1.3.15
 
User avatar
rooted
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 124
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2020 5:58 pm

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Sun Feb 16, 2020 8:14 pm

@msatter I know what he meant I should have been more clear about what I was trying to say, the reason Ovpn went the way it did is because MikroTik wrote their own implementation. With over a million lines of code in the open source implementation you can see how this would be an issue, but with the simplicity of wireguard even if they rewrite there should be no compatability issues.
 
fflo
newbie
Posts: 32
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2019 7:59 am

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Sun Feb 23, 2020 6:51 pm

Implementation of something like https://github.com/burghardt/easy-wg-quick would be awesome.

This would allow secure and fast VPN client configuration using a simple QR code to scan.
 
mada3k
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 288
Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2015 10:53 am
Location: Sweden

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Sun Feb 23, 2020 9:27 pm

Personally, I think that Wireguard is a bit of a joke, since it's hardcoded to use ChaCha20. So basiclly all systems with AES in hardware becomes useless and has to do it in software. Great work there.

But what about low-end PC's some said? Well... My Celeron N3150 ITX has AES-NI...

So bye bye all hardware offload.

https://www.wireguard.com/protocol/
https://www.reddit.com/r/WireGuard/comm ... use_aesni/

But I have to give it that looks really simple & nice to setup.
Manages some CCR's, RB750Gr3, RB922 and wAP's
 
User avatar
rooted
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 124
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2020 5:58 pm

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Mon Feb 24, 2020 12:59 am


So bye bye all hardware offload.
Wireguard is still faster than AES with offload on the same machine, CPU usage is low as well. The situation I could see this being an issue is with a lot of wireguard sessions, for the typical user needs there is no downside.
 
syadnom
Member
Member
Posts: 477
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2011 7:29 am

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Mon Feb 24, 2020 5:08 am

There's good reason to skip AES-NI. It's a speed limit. The lowly atom with AES-NI has the same performance as a 6 core i7 with AES-NI because that little component is a speed limit.

Wireguard is FAST with it's ciphers. It's basically as fast as AES-NI on modest hardware but if you through a serious CPU at it, wireguard rips. A pair of modern i7 CPUs can run 10G over wireguard. There isn't a single AES-NI hardware that can do 1/20 of that consistently.

Wireguard between two raspberry pi is faster than an AES-NI link on everything.

(I've done a lot of testing with wireguard, it's next gen legit and makes AES-NI look like 'MMX'....
 
User avatar
rooted
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 124
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2020 5:58 pm

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Mon Feb 24, 2020 10:07 am


makes AES-NI look like 'MMX'....
Nice comparison, literally lol'd
 
User avatar
anthonws
newbie
Posts: 35
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2016 6:46 pm

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Mon Feb 24, 2020 6:18 pm

I'm actually more interested in understanding the actually benefits from a server perspective (Mikrotik Router), like the benefits on a ar9344 CPU (which doesn't look like it has AES-NI alike instructions).

That is, *if* we ever get WireGuard in ROS.... LOLO

I'm honestly more geared towards changing my install over time to another brand (and even use OpenWRT) and while I'm doing so, I've started resorting more and more of RasbPI and Linux for all the stuff I want to do and eventually ROS can't (DoH, WireGuard, etc.).
 
justin0six
just joined
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2017 3:52 am

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Sun Mar 29, 2020 12:33 am

+1 for WireGuard!
 
nicolap
just joined
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2019 12:16 am

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Sun Mar 29, 2020 8:22 pm

Waiting for wireguard.npk or, at least, for an official statement...
 
Widmo
just joined
Posts: 4
Joined: Thu Sep 14, 2017 2:02 am

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Tue Mar 31, 2020 12:45 am

+3 for wireguard
 
mikrotiknoobfromeu
just joined
Posts: 7
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 10:44 pm

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Tue Mar 31, 2020 12:49 am

yes YES YES
this is a must
 
rooneybuk
newbie
Posts: 25
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2015 12:09 pm

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Tue Mar 31, 2020 11:30 am

Its good to see Wireguard is now "in-tree" on the latest kernel probably won't help here from a technical perspective as I believe RouterOS runs an old Kernel but from a support perspective Wireguard has some stability in the Linux community.

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2020/03 ... ux-kernel/
 
atakacs
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Posts: 62
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2016 5:39 pm

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Tue Mar 31, 2020 11:33 pm

Is there official position from Mikrotik about that ?

I think the overwhelming opinion of the community is very positive about Wireguard. Is it something you are exploring ? commiting to ? definitely not on the roadmap ?
 
Quasar
just joined
Posts: 21
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2014 1:11 pm

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Fri Apr 03, 2020 1:53 pm

Its good to see Wireguard is now "in-tree" on the latest kernel probably won't help here from a technical perspective as I believe RouterOS runs an old Kernel but from a support perspective Wireguard has some stability in the Linux community.

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2020/03 ... ux-kernel/
RouterOS v7 has v4.14, which is supported by wireguard-linux-compat for what it's worth.

I find it hard to believe it hasn't made it to some (Internal) alpha yet. The kernel module is basically free, the userspace/winbox glue should be trivial to implement.
 
d3m0
newbie
Posts: 31
Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 10:21 am

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Sat Apr 04, 2020 11:57 am

+1 for WG support!
 
TORNADO
just joined
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 10:38 am

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Thu Apr 09, 2020 2:49 pm

+1 for WireGuard support
 
IGHOR
just joined
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2014 12:36 am

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Sat Apr 11, 2020 2:30 pm

+100 for Wireguard support
 
HotBlock
just joined
Posts: 18
Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2017 12:30 pm

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Sat Apr 11, 2020 11:00 pm

+1
Please support Wireguard
 
seriosha
just joined
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2017 5:25 am

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Sat Apr 11, 2020 11:55 pm

In one of the podcasts, Mikrotik said that he would not implement Wireguard Protocol. I can find it if necessary.
 
User avatar
mozerd
Member
Member
Posts: 476
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2017 3:39 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Wed Apr 15, 2020 1:41 pm

Rethinking VPN: Tailscale startup packages Wireguard with network security
A whole bunch of tunnels': Mesh networking with per-node permissions and OAuth security
.....
Tailscale's product includes several pieces. First, it's based on peer-to-peer VPNs rather than piping all VPN traffic through a single concentrator. WireGuard security uses public keys. One endpoint can connect to another if it knows the public key and the UDP endpoint (IP address and port) to connect to. Tailscale maintains a database of endpoints on its server, so that when client A needs to talk to client B, it fetches the endpoint details and then makes a direct connection. Tailscale calls this a mesh network.
.....
According to Pennarun, the company was initially more interested in network security than VPNs. An early customer, a bank, wanted to secure a old but critical Windows application, and rather than updating it to use two-factor authentication, he proposed: "Why not move the server into its own little network, so that people can only access that network after they've done two-factor authentication? That was the origin of building this tool. It wasn't intended as a remote access VPN, it was intended as a local access VPN. We did base it on WireGuard because WireGuard was an efficient data plane for their system. It turned out that the core thing we build, this multi-point VPN, was applicable to all sorts of other problems.
 
mhoungbo
just joined
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2012 4:04 pm

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Sat Apr 18, 2020 11:15 pm

Please, implement support of WireGuard.
 
petertosh
newbie
Posts: 37
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2018 9:42 am

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Mon Apr 20, 2020 12:36 am

While I could use WG on a raspberrypi4, it would be so nice to have it in my CCR1009. Current experience with WG is extremely positive, compared to OpenVPN for LAN-LAN-connections.
 
User avatar
nz_monkey
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
Posts: 1896
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 1:53 pm
Location: Over the Rainbow
Contact:

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Mon Apr 20, 2020 9:57 am

Mikrotik have the development smarts to cleanly integrate WireGuard into RouterOS, and now that it has been mainlined I would not be surprised if we see it in the very near future.
http://thebrotherswisp.com/ | Mikrotik MTCNA, MTCRE, MTCINE | Fortinet NSE7 | Extreme Networks ENA
 
User avatar
floaty
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 253
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2018 1:24 am
Location: 52°08'32.34"N 14°39'05.0"E

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Mon Apr 20, 2020 2:55 pm

Mikrotik have the development smarts to cleanly integrate WireGuard into RouterOS, and now that it has been mainlined I would not be surprised if we see it in the very near future.
.
hear hear
~~
We know what happens to people who stay in the middle of the road. They get run over.
 
User avatar
manuzoli
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Posts: 78
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2016 6:47 pm

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Fri Apr 24, 2020 2:58 pm

+1 for Wireguard - keep RouterOS as awesome as it is!
 
User avatar
normis
MikroTik Support
MikroTik Support
Posts: 24756
Joined: Fri May 28, 2004 11:04 am
Location: Riga, Latvia

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Fri Apr 24, 2020 3:14 pm

nz_monkey is spot on
No answer to your question? How to write posts
 
netbus
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Posts: 53
Joined: Mon Sep 04, 2017 12:42 pm

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Fri Apr 24, 2020 3:43 pm

Since it's already reached Version 1.0
+1 for Wireguard
 
User avatar
Cha0s
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
Posts: 1026
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2005 4:53 pm

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Fri Apr 24, 2020 3:57 pm

nz_monkey is spot on
Is this an subtle acknowledgement that you are working on it? :D
 
richardtrip
just joined
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2012 2:19 pm

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Fri Apr 24, 2020 4:08 pm

nz_monkey is spot on
Is this an subtle acknowledgement that you are working on it? :D
Of course it is... We just don't know when. Waiting impatiently :-)

Verstuurd vanaf mijn MI 9 met Tapatalk

 
Paternot
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
Posts: 780
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 4:01 am
Location: Niterói / Brazil

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Fri Apr 24, 2020 4:09 pm

nz_monkey is spot on
Is this an subtle acknowledgement that you are working on it? :D
I wouldn't call it "subtle"...
It is logic, after all. It works, is easy to use and (now) was accepted in the kernel tree. But it may take some time - they already have their hands full with RoS 7.
 
Jamesits
just joined
Posts: 24
Joined: Thu Jul 13, 2017 10:15 am

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Sat Apr 25, 2020 12:24 pm

Wireguard is a design disaster in every aspect if used on a router. I'm going to name some:

1. You can't just route packets across a wireguard tunnel using the routing table (which is the base of every router), but you have to have some sort of "key" attached to that route. All the dynamic routing thing will just fail. Plus you can't dynamically attach the key to a route at least in the official version of wireguard. (Well, you can provision a tunnel for every device pair but...)

2. No PKI or external AAA support. Since you are going to provision a lot tunnels and there are no "templates" or PKI available, you'll be going to manually add config for **every device**.

3. No support for packet types other than IPv4/IPv6. This means no MPLS support at all.

I would rather go for a better IPSec VTI implementation or ZeroTier integration.
 
rooneybuk
newbie
Posts: 25
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2015 12:09 pm

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Sat Apr 25, 2020 1:11 pm

Wireguard is a design disaster in every aspect if used on a router. I'm going to name some:

1. You can't just route packets across a wireguard tunnel using the routing table (which is the base of every router), but you have to have some sort of "key" attached to that route. All the dynamic routing thing will just fail. Plus you can't dynamically attach the key to a route at least in the official version of wireguard. (Well, you can provision a tunnel for every device pair but...)

2. No PKI or external AAA support. Since you are going to provision a lot tunnels and there are no "templates" or PKI available, you'll be going to manually add config for **every device**.

3. No support for packet types other than IPv4/IPv6. This means no MPLS support at all.

I would rather go for a better IPSec VTI implementation or ZeroTier integration.
I currently used wireguard with VYOS and they seem to achieve this without a problem, I'm currently creating a wireguard tunnel to another provider (2 actually) and negotiating BGP over those.

https://vyos.readthedocs.io/en/latest/v ... guard.html

This is my workaround until Mikrotik implements this feature.
 
User avatar
mozerd
Member
Member
Posts: 476
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2017 3:39 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Sat Apr 25, 2020 3:15 pm

Wireguard is a design disaster in every aspect if used on a router. I'm going to name some:
Yes WireGuard does VPN a little differently -- actually a LOT differently. There is the Old way and now the NEW WireGuard way.

Yes, there is The Classic Solutions of Routing
BUT now there is
The New Namespace Solution .... and Yes it does take a little getting used to and from MY perspective its KISS.

Routing & Network Namespace Integration

Ordinary Containerization

Routing All Your Traffic

The Classic Solutions

The New Namespace Solution

Learning the new way is the future. :-)

RESISTANCE is futile !!! 100% guaranteed.
 
syadnom
Member
Member
Posts: 477
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2011 7:29 am

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Sat Apr 25, 2020 4:27 pm

and you can always run a GRE tunnel across wg if you need other protocols, but I don't think that's widely needed.

wg offers a next-gen very capable vpn for road warriors which is probably the main reason for so many requests. Not to say that's the only use, but that's a big one and it suits that role very well.
 
User avatar
nz_monkey
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
Posts: 1896
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 1:53 pm
Location: Over the Rainbow
Contact:

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Mon Apr 27, 2020 2:06 pm

Wireguard is a design disaster in every aspect if used on a router. I'm going to name some:
It's horses for courses. WireGuard is extremely _SIMPLE_, it allows reliable connectivity from devices that roam networks, it is easy to audit, has low overhead and performs well on a wide range of devices.

I would rather go for a better IPSec VTI implementation or ZeroTier integration.
I agree, IPSEC VTI is needed in RouterOS but it has a different use-case to WireGuard. IPSEC VTI is the industry standard and will allow integration with a wide variety of other vendors.

ZeroTier is very cool, but I am not sure how Mikrotik would go with the legal side of integrating it.
http://thebrotherswisp.com/ | Mikrotik MTCNA, MTCRE, MTCINE | Fortinet NSE7 | Extreme Networks ENA
 
User avatar
rooted
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 124
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2020 5:58 pm

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Tue Apr 28, 2020 6:53 am

Thanks for the update @normis, it's great to know.
 
syadnom
Member
Member
Posts: 477
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2011 7:29 am

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Tue Apr 28, 2020 7:42 pm

IPSEC VTI would also be welcome, but wireguard solves shortcomings in nat traversal and connectivity that no other VPN tech does. wireguard can roam seamlessly as end users switch networks without dropping for example. It doesn't care about the IP addresses packets are coming from and will update the destination to send packets to match the source address the last packet came from. I've tested this using PCC to send packets out different WANs and wireguard doesn't miss a beat.

I don't want to discount IPSEC VTI as that would be a very very good add... but I've lived without that using mikrotik for so long I don't really 'miss' it. On the other hand, mikrotik as the endpoint for road warrior VPNs is a complete fail right now for me as the only remotely reliable option is SSTP over TCP or OpenVPN over TCP. I run separate OpenVPN boxes behind my 'tiks for this. Integrated Wireguard would be immensely valuable for me.
 
gsbiz
just joined
Posts: 12
Joined: Sat Nov 17, 2018 5:18 pm

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Tue Apr 28, 2020 8:24 pm

+1 for Wireguard
 
dashkhaneh
just joined
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2020 9:59 pm

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Tue Apr 28, 2020 10:00 pm

+1 for Wireguard
 
dcavni
newbie
Posts: 29
Joined: Sun Mar 31, 2013 6:02 pm

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Wed Apr 29, 2020 7:40 pm

+1 Here also. Now i'm running wireguard on SBC behind Mikrotik.
 
ipcsolutions
just joined
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2015 1:58 am

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Thu Apr 30, 2020 4:57 am

+1 from me. Wireguard is fantastic for what I am doing
 
icsterm
newbie
Posts: 47
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2018 11:11 pm

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Sun May 03, 2020 1:12 pm

+1 for Wireguard, it's the future of VPN, simplicity and high performance.
 
samael
just joined
Posts: 9
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2008 1:57 pm
Location: Italy

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Mon May 04, 2020 11:20 pm

+1 absolutely.
i am running a dedicated openvpn/tcp server only for routeros clients (all others are on udp or wireguard already), it's a shame and i want to get rid of it!
 
reddin
just joined
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon May 04, 2020 11:46 pm

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Mon May 04, 2020 11:48 pm

I'm 100% sure that this is a must feature for ROS v7. Please, mikrotik, make my dreams come true 8)
 
steakikan
just joined
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue May 05, 2020 7:14 am

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Wed May 06, 2020 8:10 am

I second this, it would be a good alternative to something like OpenVPN for client connectivity, especially the multi thread capability which is useful on something like CCR. Other protocol are as important to be implemented, but with Covid-19 pandemic shows that any ways to provide better bandwidth tunnel for workers is better especially many choked on OpenVPN Server. It's not an alternative to IPSEC or IKE but will be a good alternative for OpenVPN (except if OpenVPN is actually multithreaded in the future). Hopefully rOS v7 has a lot of its foundation changes too to allow easier updating of modules for latest version.
 
User avatar
suloveoun
newbie
Posts: 33
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2015 11:37 am

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Fri May 08, 2020 7:31 am

Hope Mikrotik implemented as possible.
 
jantypas
newbie
Posts: 28
Joined: Sun May 02, 2010 11:57 pm

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Wed May 13, 2020 5:56 pm

Not complaining here, but I'm beginning to wonder if we've got things all wrong. I, too, wanted the Uber Mikrotik box with everything on it, but Mikrotik hasn't even got OpenVPN with UDP, and I don't see it coming any time soon, even in RouterOS 7. But when I look at it, nearly everything we're asking for is a VPN extension -- RouterOS does fine at routing. That's what it is, that's what it's for. I finally realized I could "path the graps" by putting a $150 box next to it that handles OpenVPN, Wireguard, ZeroTier etc. It's not all in one box, but everything just works.
 
jantypas
newbie
Posts: 28
Joined: Sun May 02, 2010 11:57 pm

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Wed May 13, 2020 5:57 pm

I also finally realized I can't type today :-)
 
Sob
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
Posts: 6303
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2009 9:11 pm

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Wed May 13, 2020 8:13 pm

It depends. It you need huge VPN server for many users, or have some special requirements, then dedicated machine makes sense. But if you need something for only handful of users, then anything external is overkill. Even if it would be the cheapest RasPi-like board, which would be ok price wise, it's another otherwise useless thing you need to manage. Simple VPN server on router is normal and expected feature. And once properly implemented, it should handle even more users on appropriate hardware.
People who quote full posts should be spanked with ethernet cable. Some exceptions for multi-topic threads may apply. Not intended as incentive for masochists.
 
syadnom
Member
Member
Posts: 477
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2011 7:29 am

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Wed May 13, 2020 8:54 pm

The number of devices is an important part. Space, moving parts, complexity etc.

Wireguard is a very efficient tunnel, you can spin up a very large number of them without taxing a CPU all that much. Wireguard can beat hardware AES-NI in software with it's ChaCha encryption. Wireguard can handle over 1Gbps on an Atom N3000 CPU which is in the same class as the ARM chips in rb4011s. Wireguard scales out too so these many-core mikrotik boxes should handle a substantial amount of traffic, well more than their little AES hardware can today.

If you haven't played with it, you should. I've done some of my own testing running a tunnel to lightsail and I can pull 500Mbps speed tests on that with the little $3 instance's CPU barely in double digit CPU usage.

Proper support in RouterOS is a game changer for me with road warriors.
 
User avatar
nz_monkey
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
Posts: 1896
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 1:53 pm
Location: Over the Rainbow
Contact:

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Thu May 14, 2020 2:15 am

WireGuard is amazing and as you have seen above I support it being added to RouterOS.

But... WireGuard is still a very new technology, and is missing a lot of niceties, as an example it currently has no mechanism to dynamically assign IP addresses to remote clients.

So while the enthusiasm is great, don't let your expectations of WireGuard exceed reality or you will be disappointed.
http://thebrotherswisp.com/ | Mikrotik MTCNA, MTCRE, MTCINE | Fortinet NSE7 | Extreme Networks ENA
 
andrew13
just joined
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun May 17, 2020 11:07 am

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Sun May 17, 2020 11:10 am

+1 for Wireguard
Implementing this directly on our router would be the most reliable solution for us.
 
User avatar
rooted
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 124
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2020 5:58 pm

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Mon May 18, 2020 12:40 am

I don't think more +1's are necessary, it's being added ;)
 
User avatar
mutluit
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
Posts: 765
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2020 4:04 am

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Mon May 18, 2020 1:25 pm

I don't think more +1's are necessary, it's being added ;)
But, me too! :-)
+1 for WireGuard.
WireGuard aims to provide a VPN that is both simple and highly effective. ... a codebase of around 4000 lines of pure kernel code,
about 1% of either OpenVPN or IPsec, making security audits easier, and praised by the Linux kernel creator Linus Torvalds
compared to OpenVPN and IPsec as a "work of art".
...
Oregon senator Ron Wyden has recommended to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) that they evaluate WireGuard
as a replacement for existing technologies like IPsec and OpenVPN.

Source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WireGuard
 
santyx32
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 151
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2019 2:17 am

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Tue May 19, 2020 1:42 am

+1 for Wireguard, faster than anything else
 
blaggacao
just joined
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue May 26, 2020 2:08 am

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Tue May 26, 2020 2:12 am

> Wireguard just missed the 5.5 which is expected to be the next super long LTS kernel

Just want to add, ubuntu has backported it to 5.4, see here: https://git.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-kerne ... 2be3b7ed38
 
it2all
just joined
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue May 26, 2020 10:51 am

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Tue May 26, 2020 10:57 am

+1 .... yes, please
 
mniewiera
just joined
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2017 4:52 pm

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Tue May 26, 2020 4:33 pm

+1 for Wireguard support
 
schose
just joined
Posts: 6
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2018 11:20 pm

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Tue May 26, 2020 5:20 pm

+1 for wireguard.

btw. German Telekom is placing wireguard into their end-user routers: https://www.en24.news/2020/05/telekom-t ... uters.html
 
User avatar
Kamaz
newbie
Posts: 40
Joined: Sun Apr 30, 2017 9:35 am

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Thu May 28, 2020 12:36 pm

+1 for Wireguard support
 
userid
just joined
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed May 27, 2020 9:50 am

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Thu May 28, 2020 3:13 pm

+1 for Wireguard support
 
Svenp
just joined
Posts: 9
Joined: Tue May 05, 2020 7:35 am

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Thu May 28, 2020 3:46 pm

+1 for Wireguard support
 
nchevrier
just joined
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri May 29, 2020 2:59 pm

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Fri May 29, 2020 3:00 pm

+1 for WireGuard :)
 
VogelFrei
just joined
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Jul 17, 2019 2:42 pm

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Tue Jun 02, 2020 1:33 pm

+1 for wireguard!
 
evgenij
just joined
Posts: 9
Joined: Tue May 26, 2020 11:40 am

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Wed Jun 03, 2020 6:17 pm

+10 Guys :)

I really need wireguard to rebuid VPN links between networks
 
td32
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 104
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2016 5:55 am

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Thu Jun 04, 2020 1:35 pm

7.0beta7 (2020-Jun-3 16:31):
!) system kernel has been updated to version 5.6.3;
niceeeeeeeee, guess we are on the right path
 
User avatar
kiler129
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 255
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2015 4:32 pm
Location: IL, USA
Contact:

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Fri Jun 05, 2020 9:53 pm

@normis Can we exchange a pizza fundraiser for a WG in upcoming beta(s)? ;)
 
markwien
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Posts: 57
Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2018 10:49 am

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Sun Jun 07, 2020 7:34 am

I am against WireGuard - no Hardware offload.
I am used to ipsec that works great. If u need WireGuard better install it on a server with powerful cpu.
 
User avatar
kiler129
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 255
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2015 4:32 pm
Location: IL, USA
Contact:

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Sun Jun 07, 2020 7:57 am

@markwien Have you ever used or familiarized yourself with WG? It doesn't use AES and thus cannot use hardware offload. However, this is only one side of the coin: the crypto WG uses is on par or faster than AES with acceleration, since it was designed to utilize features of modern CPUs.

Detailed benchmarks: https://an.undulating.space/post/181227 ... enchmarks/

TL;DR - on budget EdgeRouter Lite (dualcore, 500Mhz MIPS64):
Screen Shot 2020-06-06 at 11.56.00 PM.png

I really don't want to start a flamewar here, because it's not a place for it, but even folks maintaining IPSec subsystem in the Linux kernel subtree agree that WG is vastly superior in most of the scenarios.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
 
User avatar
mozerd
Member
Member
Posts: 476
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2017 3:39 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Sun Jun 07, 2020 2:18 pm

If u need WireGuard better install it on a server with powerful cpu.
The opposite is true .... @markwien - ignorance is no excuse!
 
onnoossendrijver
Member
Member
Posts: 431
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2008 11:10 am
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Mon Jun 08, 2020 12:28 am

@markwien
Detailed benchmarks: https://an.undulating.space/post/181227 ... enchmarks/

TL;DR - on budget EdgeRouter Lite (dualcore, 500Mhz MIPS64):
Screen Shot 2020-06-06 at 11.56.00 PM.png
I don't know how they did those benchmarks, but my edgerouter lite is just as fast when doing ipsec as these wireguard results.
On ipsec I get to choose the encryption. I get it that wireguard has its uses and is better than ipsec on some aspects. But to me it is absolutely not the one size fits all vpn.
Linux/network engineer: ITIL, LPI1, CCNA R+S, CCNP R+S, JNCIA, JNCIS-SEC
 
User avatar
kiler129
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 255
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2015 4:32 pm
Location: IL, USA
Contact:

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Mon Jun 08, 2020 3:49 am

my edgerouter lite is just as fast when doing ipsec as these wireguard results.
It looks like on the standard OS they're comparable, OpenWRT has probably some newer (less stable?) implementation. Based on the date of the post it's also possible that OWRT used kernel module while EdgeOS used userland implementation.

I deliberately didn't want to bring benchmarks published by WG itself, since even the author puts the following warning as of today:
These benchmarks are old, crusty, and not super well conducted. In the intervening time, WireGuard and IPsec have both gotten faster, with WireGuard stil edging out IPsec in some cases due to its multi-threading, while OpenVPN remains extremely slow. It is a work in progress to replace the below benchmarks with newer data.
However, even there the numbers look promising:
Screen Shot 2020-06-07 at 7.43.29 PM.png
On ipsec I get to choose the encryption. I get it that wireguard has its uses and is better than ipsec on some aspects. But to me it is absolutely not the one size fits all vpn.
And I can agree with this 101%. WG is not a magical one-fits-all, and the author itself is aware of that. Even the fact that WG deliberately tunnels IP layer only is a limiting factor for many. However, as a general tunneling protocol for HTTP/SMB/AFP, especially for road warriors on mobile it's vastly better.
The biggest gripe with IPSec is not its configuration itself when you control both ends, but attempting to match both sides. Also, after you do you will get reports that "it doesn't work, I'm in hotel X" after which you see how many pseudoadmins do DROP ALL, ALLOW TCP+UDP.

It's worth listening to https://podcast.asknoahshow.com/177 (WG part starts 16:40) - the author has a very sane approach to limitations, goals, and challenges along the way, as well as how the Linux community approached the new "revolutionary" protocol.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
 
User avatar
nz_monkey
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
Posts: 1896
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 1:53 pm
Location: Over the Rainbow
Contact:

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Mon Jun 08, 2020 5:34 am

@markwien
Detailed benchmarks: https://an.undulating.space/post/181227 ... enchmarks/

TL;DR - on budget EdgeRouter Lite (dualcore, 500Mhz MIPS64):
Screen Shot 2020-06-06 at 11.56.00 PM.png
I don't know how they did those benchmarks, but my edgerouter lite is just as fast when doing ipsec as these wireguard results.
On ipsec I get to choose the encryption. I get it that wireguard has its uses and is better than ipsec on some aspects. But to me it is absolutely not the one size fits all vpn.
I 100% Agree with @onnoossendrijver

WireGuard has a huge number of limitations in comparison with IPSEC, and quite a few with OpenVPN too.

It is a case of "Horses for Courses".

I will be using WireGuard for direct connectivity to VM's and Containers as it is MUCH simpler than IPSEC or OpenVPN. But for general site-to-site VPN's and for dial-in VPN's I will continue to use IPSEC.
http://thebrotherswisp.com/ | Mikrotik MTCNA, MTCRE, MTCINE | Fortinet NSE7 | Extreme Networks ENA
 
User avatar
eugenelvb
just joined
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2020 11:56 am

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Sun Jul 05, 2020 12:01 pm

I look forward to supporting wiregiard
+1
 
ferdytao
newbie
Posts: 26
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2016 8:51 am

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Wed Jul 08, 2020 2:02 pm

+1 for Wireguard
 
jwischka
just joined
Posts: 5
Joined: Sun Dec 17, 2017 11:10 pm

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Mon Jul 20, 2020 5:56 pm

Personally, I'd prefer to see Slack's nebula VPN (which is based on Wireguard) included instead of stock Wireguard.

Nebula's three key benefits, as I see it are:
1) the mesh topology
2) the ability to choose different ciphers, if you want
and most importantly
3) a much more robust PKI solution for deploying at scale.

Wireguard is fine if you're setting up a few point-to-point hosts, but when you start trying to deploy and manage hundreds of nodes, it becomes cumbersome in a hurry.
 
User avatar
rooted
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 124
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2020 5:58 pm

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Tue Jul 21, 2020 3:15 am

Personally I would much rather see vanilla Wireguard, simplicity and speed is all I need.
 
jwischka
just joined
Posts: 5
Joined: Sun Dec 17, 2017 11:10 pm

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Wed Jul 22, 2020 7:18 pm

Personally I would much rather see vanilla Wireguard, simplicity and speed is all I need.
Which Nebula also offers. In fact, Nebula offers basically all of the benefits of Wireguard with almost none of its drawbacks. It is, essentially, an administration framework that makes Wireguard functional at scale. I'd recommend you actually look at it before dismissing it outright.

Again, Wireguard has a lot of really great properties, and it's a good pick if you need to quickly set up a couple of point-to-point tunnels. But when you start talking about needing to deploy to dozens (or in my case, several hundreds) of nodes it becomes a non-solution.

The main deployability benefit in terms of scale is the inclusion of each peer's VPN address in the certificate, meaning you don't have to edit a random text file / make a config change every time you need to add a new host - just generate a new crt/key pair, toss it on the new node and everything just works.

There are (obviously) a lot of people who have a lot of interest in the inclusion of Wireguard - and look, I use it in some personal applications, particularly on travel routers back when we were allowed to leave our homes. But in terms of how I use RouterOS professionally, switching to vanilla Wireguard is a non-starter. We only buy a few hundred Mikrotik routers a year, so I'm not big-potatoes in that regard (and we're going to continue buying them whether they include Nebula, Wireguard, or neither). But without a competent way to administer 1000+ Wireguard nodes (and no, VI does not work here), it's hard for me to get excited about its inclusion in RouterOS.
 
User avatar
rooted
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 124
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2020 5:58 pm

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Wed Jul 22, 2020 7:55 pm

How large is the Nebula codebase? Wireguard is compact, this is needed in devices that are already pushing the limits of what can fit into the limited remaining memory.

(edit)
I just looked, the arm7 binary is 14.64 MB and nebula-cert is 4.23 MB
 
jwischka
just joined
Posts: 5
Joined: Sun Dec 17, 2017 11:10 pm

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Wed Jul 22, 2020 8:02 pm

How large is the Nebula codebase? Wireguard is compact, this is needed in devices that are already pushing the limits of what can fit into the limited remaining memory.
Look, I'm not interested in escalating a bad-faith argument. I posted the link to the github above, if you're interested in checking it out.

(Answer: since it literally uses Wireguard for its tunnel infrastructure, it's larger than Wireguard).
 
User avatar
rooted
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 124
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2020 5:58 pm

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Wed Jul 22, 2020 8:04 pm

It's not an argument, how would something this large be implemented?
 
User avatar
kiler129
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 255
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2015 4:32 pm
Location: IL, USA
Contact:

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Wed Jul 22, 2020 9:13 pm

I agree with @rooted on that. While the project looks promising it recreates many problems of OpenVPN/IPSec like PKI management. WG is meant to plug to other things (like DHCP or OSPF) and by small, light, and kernel-level. Additionally the Nebula is still work-in-progress with no client for iOS, which like it or not, is extremely popular.

Additionally, while there are certain use cases for Nebula, it's not something a huge community is surrounded around. There's a reason why Linux nor MT jump on shines new toys. Nebula by itself, as an ADDITION on top of WG clocks over 16,000 lines of code. WG in comparison is around 2,000. This is one of the arguments why WG become popular: it can be easily audited, Nebula can't.
 
syadnom
Member
Member
Posts: 477
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2011 7:29 am

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Wed Jul 22, 2020 9:45 pm

Wireguard as a stand alone tunnel type in mikrotik with a simply key generator that can be copied/pasted like you'd do setting up an EoIP tunnel is immensely useful without any added frills. If mikrotik would add that then it would have the baseline features for adding nebula or other wireguard based things later.

Please please add this and please please please allow us to set src-address and/or routing table for the tunnel to make redundant connections easy to manage.
 
jwischka
just joined
Posts: 5
Joined: Sun Dec 17, 2017 11:10 pm

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Wed Jul 22, 2020 9:47 pm

It's not an argument, how would something this large be implemented?
Presumably the same way you implement anything on an embedded environment - through a lot of compile optimization and stripping out parts that aren't fully necessary for the actual CPU you are targeting or functionality you're not interested in.

A quick look at the nebula build scripts confirms that there are no size optimizations in the linker flags. A compile using -s -w knocked about 40% off the size of the executable on AMD64. Running it through UPX kicked it down to 24% of its original size (4,225,512 vs 17,579,597). These optimizations took me 4 minutes. It's also worth noting that Go binaries are all statically linked, which increases the file size considerably compared to a dynamically linked C/C++ binary. One assumes that you could dynamically link using gccgo and experience additional reductions.

Then there's the matter of functionality reduction / combination. A RouterOS implementation would almost certainly strip out the SSH-based management server. Parts of nebula-cert would likely be implemented in RouterOS's already existing CA. Or as Mikrotik are wont to do, they might not use the stock implementation at all (*cough* OpenVPN *cough*) and roll their own. All of these are possibilities.

Is all of this more difficult than integrating Wireguard alone? Sure. Absolutely. Is it impossible? I doubt it.
I agree with @rooted on that. While the project looks promising it recreates many problems of OpenVPN/IPSec like PKI management. WG is meant to plug to other things (like DHCP or OSPF) and by small, light, and kernel-level. Additionally the Nebula is still work-in-progress with no client for iOS, which like it or not, is extremely popular.

Additionally, while there are certain use cases for Nebula, it's not something a huge community is surrounded around. There's a reason why Linux nor MT jump on shines new toys. Nebula by itself, as an ADDITION on top of WG clocks over 16,000 lines of code. WG in comparison is around 2,000. This is one of the arguments why WG become popular: it can be easily audited, Nebula can't.
For starters, Wireguard isn't 2,000 lines of code. It's over twice that. Also, I'd push back on your claim that WG is popular because "it can be easily audited" in a couple of ways. Most importantly, whether it can be easily audited or not, it hasn't been. Second, I suspect a one-man-shop project like WG, well coded though it may be, is less likely to receive a formal audit than a project backed by a major internet presence like Slack. Third, the fact that you weren't aware of the actual size of WG's code makes me wonder whether you've bothered to actually look at it yourself at any level. And finally, when you say, "There's a reason why Linux nor MT jump on shiny new toys" - Wireguard is basically the definition of a shiny new toy.

When you suggest that "[Nebula] recreates many problems of OpenVPN/IPSec like PKI management..." I think, again, you really just don't understand what's involved in deploying something like this at scale. Is it "easier" when you're setting up 5 nodes to copy in a few public keys to your server config than it is to set up a PKI? Sure. But that kind of solution doesn't scale when you're talking about managing 1,500 nodes. I can barely keep track of which device is associated with which private key on the minor Wireguard installations I have - I have no idea how you would systematically manage something like that in production. Once you reach a certain number of nodes, managing a PKI becomes far easier than exchanging private keys with both hosts. A solution like Wireguard that requires you to update your server configuration / restart the instance every time you add a node is simply unacceptable.

Again, Wireguard has a lot of really nice properties. I like it, and use it for a number of applications. But there's a big difference between tinkering in a home lab with a few hosts and deploying something to hundreds or thousands of hosts in production. Wireguard is great for the first use case, but it's a non-starter for the second.

You also state that WG is meant to plug into DHCP. Unless Jason has changed his approach, I highly doubt that. He's on record as saying there are no plans to support dynamic VPN address assignments in WG, because (and I can't find the quote right now) "static addresses are a better way to design your network."

At any rate, I've stated my preference. Mikrotik will either listen, or they won't. Wireguard has an almost religious following now, and it's becoming difficult to hold any kind of rational discussion about the matter. I should have known better.

Best...
 
mister2d
just joined
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2020 11:39 pm

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Mon Jul 27, 2020 11:52 pm

It's not an argument, how would something this large be implemented?
...

At any rate, I've stated my preference. Mikrotik will either listen, or they won't. Wireguard has an almost religious following now, and it's becoming difficult to hold any kind of rational discussion about the matter. I should have known better.

Best...

+1 Wireguard

It's not a fair assessment to label the feature request of Wireguard as a "religious following". That's actually a very short-sighted/narrow understanding of people's needs in the time of a pandemic. The very practical, safe, and reasonable approach would be to implement Wireguard in RouterOS as soon as possible. Unless the current VPN implementations from Mikrotik checks all the same boxes of requirements and Wireguard doesn't, I say 'why not'?
 
Jassu
just joined
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2020 12:31 am

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Tue Aug 04, 2020 2:01 pm

+1 for WireGuard!
 
mducharme
Trainer
Trainer
Posts: 1053
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2016 6:45 pm

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Tue Aug 04, 2020 9:25 pm

Give them a bit of time at least - they have already basically said they are adding it.
 
User avatar
emils
MikroTik Support
MikroTik Support
Posts: 671
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 8:53 am

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Wed Aug 05, 2020 2:13 pm

Screenshot from 2020-08-05 14-13-29.png
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
 
User avatar
dynek
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 199
Joined: Tue Jan 21, 2014 10:03 pm

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Wed Aug 05, 2020 3:20 pm

This is becoming exciting!
 
User avatar
mozerd
Member
Member
Posts: 476
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2017 3:39 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Wed Aug 05, 2020 3:21 pm

:D
nice
 
Paternot
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
Posts: 780
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 4:01 am
Location: Niterói / Brazil

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Wed Aug 05, 2020 4:28 pm

This is getting interesting! :D
 
mister2d
just joined
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2020 11:39 pm

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Wed Aug 05, 2020 6:55 pm

Look at that throughput! Not bad for the lack of "hardware offloading".
 
syadnom
Member
Member
Posts: 477
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2011 7:29 am

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Wed Aug 05, 2020 7:24 pm

I would bet that bandwidth test is being used to generate this flow and that's affecting the throughput a bit too. Pretty impressive IMO.
 
mister2d
just joined
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2020 11:39 pm

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Wed Aug 05, 2020 7:53 pm

I would bet that bandwidth test is being used to generate this flow and that's affecting the throughput a bit too. Pretty impressive IMO.
Exactly.
 
User avatar
rooted
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 124
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2020 5:58 pm

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Thu Aug 06, 2020 12:22 am

That's amazing speed from a hAP AC², thank you for sharing the progress.
 
mjbnz
just joined
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2020 3:05 pm

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Thu Aug 06, 2020 3:09 pm

I registered an account just to look at the attachment... and it was worth it!
 
sbrusse
just joined
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2020 12:34 pm

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Fri Aug 07, 2020 12:39 pm

Screenshot from 2020-08-05 14-13-29.png
Hi Emils,

Is there any chance we could have access to this?
We are really crucially depending on wireguard and anything that could make it work, even a alpha/beta version would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks
Stan
 
User avatar
0bit
just joined
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2020 10:21 pm
Location: /dev/null

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Fri Aug 07, 2020 11:40 pm

+1 for WireGuard
 
User avatar
eworm
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
Posts: 724
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2014 9:23 am
Location: Oberhausen, Germany
Contact:

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Sat Aug 08, 2020 3:27 pm

Great! Looks like it is about as fast as IPSec...
At least on ARM. Wondering what numbers look like on mipsbe and tile.
Manage RouterOS scripts and extend your devices' functionality: RouterOS Scripts
 
dbolotin
just joined
Posts: 1
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2020 5:22 pm

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Sat Aug 08, 2020 5:27 pm

I registered an account just to look at the attachment... and it was worth it!
me too!
 
reddin
just joined
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon May 04, 2020 11:46 pm

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Sun Aug 09, 2020 2:25 pm

Finally. All I could dream for
 
vaizki
newbie
Posts: 25
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2011 3:44 pm
Location: Finland

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Tue Aug 11, 2020 5:05 pm

Can't wait.. and this post has 35 000 views already :shock:
 
nathan1
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 159
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2016 7:05 pm

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Tue Aug 11, 2020 6:06 pm

Looks like some great activity already...+1 for WireGuard as well.
 
User avatar
mozerd
Member
Member
Posts: 476
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2017 3:39 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Thu Aug 13, 2020 2:59 pm

DID you know that WireGuard now runs under Windows 10, macOS, IOS, Android and MANY flavors of Linux
https://www.wireguard.com/install/

Amazing !!! :D
 
User avatar
rooted
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 124
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2020 5:58 pm

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Fri Aug 14, 2020 9:05 am

DID you know that WireGuard now runs under Windows 10, macOS, IOS, Android and MANY flavors of Linux
https://www.wireguard.com/install/

Amazing !!! :D
Part of what makes it so attractive, portability and ease of setup and use.
 
santyx32
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 151
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2019 2:17 am

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Fri Aug 14, 2020 2:17 pm

Kudos to the team, it's day and night compared to OpenVPN
 
Florian
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Posts: 90
Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2016 9:45 am
Location: France

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Sun Aug 16, 2020 2:01 pm

Oh man that screenshot... Can't wait ! Good luck with the v7 development !
- Sorry for my english -
 
tomjepp
just joined
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2020 7:26 pm

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Fri Aug 21, 2020 3:20 pm

Great to see this now released in beta2. I've done some testing and it seems to work very nicely!

Only issue I've seen so far is that it doesn't seem to be possible to enter a port number for your peer's endpoint in Winbox - it fails validation. In the CLI this works just fine though.
 
User avatar
kiler129
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 255
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2015 4:32 pm
Location: IL, USA
Contact:

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Fri Aug 21, 2020 8:21 pm

For anyone not subscribing to v7 updates the beta2 showed on the screenshot is publicly available now: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=152003#p812227
 
ukro
just joined
Posts: 6
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2019 8:51 pm

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Fri Aug 21, 2020 10:15 pm

Omg, god bless developers, waiting for the WIREGUARD so much !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!, subscribed for the updates !
 
thekrzos
just joined
Posts: 22
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 10:39 am

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Sun Aug 23, 2020 2:53 am

Aaaanndd... it's works!
Android client connected to hAP ac2 - speedtest 150/150Mbps, MT CPU ~60%.
 
mister2d
just joined
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2020 11:39 pm

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Sun Aug 23, 2020 3:02 am

Rb4011 yields me about 300Mbps through a 1Gbps pipe.
 
syadnom
Member
Member
Posts: 477
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2011 7:29 am

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Sun Aug 23, 2020 3:39 am

Rb4011 yields me about 300Mbps through a 1Gbps pipe.
How are you benchmarking that?
 
mister2d
just joined
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2020 11:39 pm

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Sun Aug 23, 2020 3:58 am

Rb4011 yields me about 300Mbps through a 1Gbps pipe.
How are you benchmarking that?
I benchmarked using iperf. I have a Linux VM at a cloud provider functioning as the "client" to my Linux box within my home network functioning as the "server".
These results were just taken and are slightly lower than when the network is idle. The family is streaming a video show right now.

$ iperf3 -c 10.10.10.7 -t 10

Connecting to host 10.10.10.7, port 5201
[  4] local 10.10.13.2 port 45388 connected to 10.10.10.7 port 5201
[ ID] Interval           Transfer     Bandwidth       Retr  Cwnd
[  4]   0.00-1.00   sec  2.62 MBytes  22.0 Mbits/sec    0    152 KBytes
[  4]   1.00-2.00   sec  5.33 MBytes  44.8 Mbits/sec    0    357 KBytes
[  4]   2.00-3.00   sec  10.1 MBytes  84.6 Mbits/sec    0    778 KBytes
[  4]   3.00-4.00   sec  22.5 MBytes   189 Mbits/sec    0   1.77 MBytes
[  4]   4.00-5.00   sec  30.0 MBytes   251 Mbits/sec    0   2.63 MBytes
[  4]   5.00-6.00   sec  36.2 MBytes   305 Mbits/sec  111   2.21 MBytes
[  4]   6.00-7.00   sec  36.2 MBytes   304 Mbits/sec    0   2.43 MBytes
[  4]   7.00-8.00   sec  37.5 MBytes   315 Mbits/sec    1   1.81 MBytes
[  4]   8.00-9.00   sec  27.5 MBytes   231 Mbits/sec    0   1.92 MBytes
[  4]   9.00-10.00  sec  31.2 MBytes   262 Mbits/sec    0   2.00 MBytes
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ ID] Interval           Transfer     Bandwidth       Retr
[  4]   0.00-10.00  sec   239 MBytes   201 Mbits/sec  112             sender
[  4]   0.00-10.00  sec   238 MBytes   200 Mbits/sec                  receiver
 
ethanspitz
just joined
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2020 11:19 am

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Sun Aug 23, 2020 5:09 am

Aaaanndd... it's works!
Android client connected to hAP ac2 - speedtest 150/150Mbps, MT CPU ~60%.
I just did a SMB file transfer from my phone to my NAS over the wireguard tunnel and got 200Mbps with about 65-75% CPU usage. Curious to see what would happen if I did a test where my phone's WiFi wasn't a possible bottleneck! But also too lazy to get up off the couch! (Configured the tunnel from my phone lol)
 
syadnom
Member
Member
Posts: 477
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2011 7:29 am

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Sun Aug 23, 2020 4:28 pm

Rb4011 yields me about 300Mbps through a 1Gbps pipe.
How are you benchmarking that?
I benchmarked using iperf. I have a Linux VM at a cloud provider functioning as the "client" to my Linux box within my home network functioning as the "server".
These results were just taken and are slightly lower than when the network is idle. The family is streaming a video show right now.

$ iperf3 -c 10.10.10.7 -t 10

Connecting to host 10.10.10.7, port 5201
[  4] local 10.10.13.2 port 45388 connected to 10.10.10.7 port 5201
[ ID] Interval           Transfer     Bandwidth       Retr  Cwnd
[  4]   0.00-1.00   sec  2.62 MBytes  22.0 Mbits/sec    0    152 KBytes
[  4]   1.00-2.00   sec  5.33 MBytes  44.8 Mbits/sec    0    357 KBytes
[  4]   2.00-3.00   sec  10.1 MBytes  84.6 Mbits/sec    0    778 KBytes
[  4]   3.00-4.00   sec  22.5 MBytes   189 Mbits/sec    0   1.77 MBytes
[  4]   4.00-5.00   sec  30.0 MBytes   251 Mbits/sec    0   2.63 MBytes
[  4]   5.00-6.00   sec  36.2 MBytes   305 Mbits/sec  111   2.21 MBytes
[  4]   6.00-7.00   sec  36.2 MBytes   304 Mbits/sec    0   2.43 MBytes
[  4]   7.00-8.00   sec  37.5 MBytes   315 Mbits/sec    1   1.81 MBytes
[  4]   8.00-9.00   sec  27.5 MBytes   231 Mbits/sec    0   1.92 MBytes
[  4]   9.00-10.00  sec  31.2 MBytes   262 Mbits/sec    0   2.00 MBytes
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ ID] Interval           Transfer     Bandwidth       Retr
[  4]   0.00-10.00  sec   239 MBytes   201 Mbits/sec  112             sender
[  4]   0.00-10.00  sec   238 MBytes   200 Mbits/sec                  receiver
Not bad. I mean it's not really matching hardware accelerated ipsec on that specific hardware but pretty good for CPU encryption.
 
mister2d
just joined
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2020 11:39 pm

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Sun Aug 23, 2020 4:34 pm

Rb4011 yields me about 300Mbps through a 1Gbps pipe.
How are you benchmarking that?
I benchmarked using iperf. I have a Linux VM at a cloud provider functioning as the "client" to my Linux box within my home network functioning as the "server".
These results were just taken and are slightly lower than when the network is idle. The family is streaming a video show right now.

$ iperf3 -c 10.10.10.7 -t 10

Connecting to host 10.10.10.7, port 5201
[  4] local 10.10.13.2 port 45388 connected to 10.10.10.7 port 5201
[ ID] Interval           Transfer     Bandwidth       Retr  Cwnd
[  4]   0.00-1.00   sec  2.62 MBytes  22.0 Mbits/sec    0    152 KBytes
[  4]   1.00-2.00   sec  5.33 MBytes  44.8 Mbits/sec    0    357 KBytes
[  4]   2.00-3.00   sec  10.1 MBytes  84.6 Mbits/sec    0    778 KBytes
[  4]   3.00-4.00   sec  22.5 MBytes   189 Mbits/sec    0   1.77 MBytes
[  4]   4.00-5.00   sec  30.0 MBytes   251 Mbits/sec    0   2.63 MBytes
[  4]   5.00-6.00   sec  36.2 MBytes   305 Mbits/sec  111   2.21 MBytes
[  4]   6.00-7.00   sec  36.2 MBytes   304 Mbits/sec    0   2.43 MBytes
[  4]   7.00-8.00   sec  37.5 MBytes   315 Mbits/sec    1   1.81 MBytes
[  4]   8.00-9.00   sec  27.5 MBytes   231 Mbits/sec    0   1.92 MBytes
[  4]   9.00-10.00  sec  31.2 MBytes   262 Mbits/sec    0   2.00 MBytes
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ ID] Interval           Transfer     Bandwidth       Retr
[  4]   0.00-10.00  sec   239 MBytes   201 Mbits/sec  112             sender
[  4]   0.00-10.00  sec   238 MBytes   200 Mbits/sec                  receiver
Not bad. I mean it's not really matching hardware accelerated ipsec on that specific hardware but pretty good for CPU encryption.
Interesting. Now I'll have to perform a ipsec benchmark later today. I'm curious to see the delta.
 
syadnom
Member
Member
Posts: 477
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2011 7:29 am

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Sun Aug 23, 2020 4:40 pm

Interesting. Now I'll have to perform a ipsec benchmark later today. I'm curious to see the delta.
rb4011 has the Annapurna Labs 21400 which is an ipsec beast. Do AES256CBC w/ SHA256.
 
User avatar
rooted
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 124
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2020 5:58 pm

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Mon Aug 24, 2020 12:25 am

I'm not understanding these low speeds when the test emils did above was from a hAP ac² and was nearly 430 Mbps.
 
ethanspitz
just joined
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2020 11:19 am

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Mon Aug 24, 2020 12:33 am

I'm not understanding these low speeds when the test emils did above was from a hAP ac² and was nearly 430 Mbps.
Not sure what he was testing with. I was doing SMB which may very well be slower over wireguard compared to a dedicated speed test which you optimize for the protocol.
 
User avatar
mozerd
Member
Member
Posts: 476
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2017 3:39 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Mon Aug 24, 2020 12:48 am

Not sure what he was testing with. I was doing SMB which may very well be slower over wireguard compared to a dedicated speed test which you optimize for the protocol.
One must always remember that the weakest link rate will always determine the vpn throughput;
For example .... router1 in location1 has a symmetrical connection of 1Gbps/1Gbps
......................... router2 in location2 has a asymmetrical connection of 1Gbps/50Mbps

So in the above scenario the very best VPN throughput cannot exceed 50Mbps between router1 and router2
 
syadnom
Member
Member
Posts: 477
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2011 7:29 am

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Mon Aug 24, 2020 6:33 am

Could also have some debug code enabled or the compiler may be using conservative or non-threading flags.

Can you guys run cpu profile while you test?

I’m not entirely sure if we should expect multi-threading for a single tunnel. Could potentially get these speeds simultaneously on 4 separate tunnels too.
 
ethanspitz
just joined
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2020 11:19 am

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Mon Aug 24, 2020 8:42 am

Could also have some debug code enabled or the compiler may be using conservative or non-threading flags.

Can you guys run cpu profile while you test?

I’m not entirely sure if we should expect multi-threading for a single tunnel. Could potentially get these speeds simultaneously on 4 separate tunnels too.
Unfortunately, I'm not familiar with CPU profiling if that's some sort of specific tool. I will say that the fact that CPU load is greater than 25% indicates to me that it is at least taking advantage of multiple cores.

Using SMB file transfer on my W10 machine to my NAS, I was able to get ~240 download
Image

Interestingly Uploading to the NAS was faster.
Image

It's possible that Read/Write speed of my NAS has an affect here. I doubt it's the network as basically my W10 desktop is wired to the hAP ac2 and that is wired directly to the NAS (Linux server).

Installing a librespeed docker really quick on my server, I was able to get faster results and in the interface stats, it was even higher than the screenshot said. It's a burst though and I'm not really sure how to configure this server to run longer tests. That said, they are pretty consistent on subsequent runs.
Image

Also, so there's no question about the underlying link quality, here's the same test, but with not going through the tunnel.
Image
 
User avatar
emils
MikroTik Support
MikroTik Support
Posts: 671
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 8:53 am

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Mon Aug 24, 2020 9:25 am

There are many things that will have high impact on the throughput. Some of them:
  • proper testing method - you want to test the routers throughput as a device that is between two other devices that perform the test. Generating or processing the traffic on the same router will reduce the throughput because the device will have to do other things beside encrypting/decrypting and routing.
    My test setup:
    https://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Manual:T ... mance_test
  • other configuration on the device - mostly connection tracking, firewall and QoS has the highest impact on the throughput of your router. No other configuration in my case.
  • the kind of traffic used - TCP and UDP has different characteristics. In most cases UDP will be a lot faster. TCP shows its downside in high latency links due to small window sizes and packet losses. My test was performed in LAN network with UDP traffic.
Here is another test with mipsbe hAP ac.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
 
ethanspitz
just joined
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2020 11:19 am

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Mon Aug 24, 2020 10:06 am

There are many things that will have high impact on the throughput. Some of them:
  • proper testing method - you want to test the routers throughput as a device that is between two other devices that perform the test. Generating or processing the traffic on the same router will reduce the throughput because the device will have to do other things beside encrypting/decrypting and routing.
    My test setup:
    https://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Manual:T ... mance_test
  • other configuration on the device - mostly connection tracking, firewall and QoS has the highest impact on the throughput of your router. No other configuration in my case.
  • the kind of traffic used - TCP and UDP has different characteristics. In most cases UDP will be a lot faster. TCP shows its downside in high latency links due to small window sizes and packet losses. My test was performed in LAN network with UDP traffic.
Here is another test with mipsbe hAP ac.
Can you tell us a little more about your traffic generator? What size UDP packets? What's the MTU you're using between the two routers that is handling the wireguard tunnel?

I agree that you can't use the router the generate traffic, and I'm not in my case. I tried iperf3 and didn't see any better performance with UDP.

The largest variable I see is the other end of my tunnel is a windows 10 client. It's possible that is slower than the router implementation, but my desktop PC has quite a beefy cpu, so that doesn't seem to be super likely to be the case (i7-9700k)
 
User avatar
Gnubyte
just joined
Posts: 17
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2020 7:31 pm
Location: Toulon - France

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Mon Aug 24, 2020 10:39 am

+1 for Wireguard
 
User avatar
harry66
newbie
Posts: 48
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 5:29 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Mon Aug 24, 2020 1:23 pm

I am actually using Wireguard since longer and therefore completely eliminated all other types of access like L2TP/IPsec and OVPN.
However I am super unhappy with operating a dedicated environment to provide the termination point for wireguard including all routing stuff.

And of course I am happy with Mtik but not for every price, esp. ease of integration and maintenance.
For me it is a matter of competitive advantage.

+1 for Wireguard on Mikrotik
+1 for more recent kernel version (efficiency, features, maturity) "stable frontrunner"

/Uwe
Here I could list the estate, but who cares?
 
User avatar
eworm
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
Posts: 724
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2014 9:23 am
Location: Oberhausen, Germany
Contact:

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Mon Aug 24, 2020 5:07 pm

Testing on a RB951G (mipsbe with 600MHz single core) with a 100/40 MBit/s uplink: I could do 90/38 MBit/s through the tunnel - with bandwidth-test on the device itself.
Pretty impressive given that IPSec barely does 20 MBit/s...

So can't wait to see WireGuard in a stable version... I hope it does not take too long for RouterOS v7 to move.
Manage RouterOS scripts and extend your devices' functionality: RouterOS Scripts
 
danbit
just joined
Posts: 5
Joined: Sun Aug 16, 2020 10:48 pm

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Tue Aug 25, 2020 11:11 pm

Has anyone been able to set mikrotik as a peer to another existing wireguard server?

I'm trying to set it up but I can't get it to work and in the current beta I can't get wireguard logging to better understand what is happening.
 
urban69
just joined
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 4:50 pm

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Wed Aug 26, 2020 2:06 am

It's not working from webfig (haven't tried winbox), but it's working from console, just like that
/interface wireguard
add listen-port=xxx mtu=xxx name=wireguard1 private-key=\
    "xxx"
/interface wireguard peers
add allowed-address=192.168.x.0/24,2xxx:::/64 endpoint=\
    xxx:xxx interface=wireguard1 persistent-keepalive=25 \
    public-key="xxx"
 
drbytes
just joined
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2020 2:51 pm

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Thu Aug 27, 2020 9:34 pm

Ok, this is getting to me.
First it was socks5, how long did that take?
Now I've been waiting forever for wireguard to show up. Still not there in stable and that kernel can be a much more recent version.

So, I've had it, I'm moving on. What kind of router would ya'll recommend ?
 
User avatar
kiler129
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 255
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2015 4:32 pm
Location: IL, USA
Contact:

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Thu Aug 27, 2020 10:28 pm

First it was socks5, how long did that take?
Maybe because interest in SOCKSv5 was absymal? The FR on the forum has 30 posts in 10 years where WG got >150 in a couple of months.

Now I've been waiting forever for wireguard to show up. Still not there in stable and that kernel can be a much more recent version.
WG was officially appeared in the Linux Kernel with 5.6 released in March 2020 - you seem to be very impatient. Running the client side implementation is not really a feasible option on a router.
The kernel version isn't old like it used to be. I'm sure they have a process now to deliver more recent updates looking at the progress in v7. However, don't expect a bleeding edge kernel on non-general purpose device.

So, I've had it, I'm moving on. What kind of router would ya'll recommend ?
It's good you're moving on if you're not satisfied, nobody is forcing you to use MT. Your entire post history is two posts with sarcastic complains, so I think you're on a wrong forum to ask for a purchase advice.
 
ethanspitz
just joined
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2020 11:19 am

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Fri Aug 28, 2020 4:55 am

First it was socks5, how long did that take?
Maybe because interest in SOCKSv5 was absymal? The FR on the forum has 30 posts in 10 years where WG got >150 in a couple of months.

Now I've been waiting forever for wireguard to show up. Still not there in stable and that kernel can be a much more recent version.
WG was officially appeared in the Linux Kernel with 5.6 released in March 2020 - you seem to be very impatient. Running the client side implementation is not really a feasible option on a router.
The kernel version isn't old like it used to be. I'm sure they have a process now to deliver more recent updates looking at the progress in v7. However, don't expect a bleeding edge kernel on non-general purpose device.

So, I've had it, I'm moving on. What kind of router would ya'll recommend ?
It's good you're moving on if you're not satisfied, nobody is forcing you to use MT. Your entire post history is two posts with sarcastic complains, so I think you're on a wrong forum to ask for a purchase advice.
100% agree.

Let's stop the discussion of this here though. This is a thread about Wireguard support for MT. The above discussion is irrelevant.
 
User avatar
normis
MikroTik Support
MikroTik Support
Posts: 24756
Joined: Fri May 28, 2004 11:04 am
Location: Riga, Latvia

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Fri Aug 28, 2020 8:38 am

Some of the above posters have not realised that Wireguard has been added to RouterOS already.
It can't be put into a "Stable" RouterOS release, since it requires a new kernel, and is inherently not "stable" if we replace the core of the OS.
No answer to your question? How to write posts
 
struk
just joined
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2020 4:36 pm

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Fri Aug 28, 2020 4:46 pm

Has anyone been able to set mikrotik as a peer to another existing wireguard server?

I'm trying to set it up but I can't get it to work and in the current beta I can't get wireguard logging to better understand what is happening.
I was trying to connect to an already live wireguard server. I wrote the address and port through the terminal, because WebFig does not have a Port field. But tcpdump on the server does not see calls to this port. But connection can established from the client machine BEHIND the mikrotik. I feel a little disappointed
 
ethanspitz
just joined
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2020 11:19 am

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Mon Aug 31, 2020 8:30 pm

Has anyone been able to set mikrotik as a peer to another existing wireguard server?

I'm trying to set it up but I can't get it to work and in the current beta I can't get wireguard logging to better understand what is happening.
I was trying to connect to an already live wireguard server. I wrote the address and port through the terminal, because WebFig does not have a Port field. But tcpdump on the server does not see calls to this port. But connection can established from the client machine BEHIND the mikrotik. I feel a little disappointed
That sounds like a firewall issue to me. MikroTik doesn't inherently have a "behind" or "in front of". That only really comes into play when you have your firewall.
 
nostromog
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 203
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2018 3:39 pm

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Mon Aug 31, 2020 8:44 pm

Has anyone been able to set mikrotik as a peer to another existing wireguard server?
Yes. I had an old experimental setup: in a computer at home one peer, a port directed in the router, and I used to test from my laptop.

Now I transfered my laptop configuration to my mikrotik travel router and it started working instantly.

I am very busy currently but I'm really looking forward to setting up a proper network...

What I mostly love is that it is not chatty at all. Basically the "dial-on-demand" characteristic of the ppp VPNs is built-in (unless you set up keepalive). And the connection is restored in just two one roundtrip.
 
danbit
just joined
Posts: 5
Joined: Sun Aug 16, 2020 10:48 pm

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Wed Sep 09, 2020 3:45 pm

Has anyone been able to set mikrotik as a peer to another existing wireguard server?
Yes. I had an old experimental setup: in a computer at home one peer, a port directed in the router, and I used to test from my laptop.

Now I transfered my laptop configuration to my mikrotik travel router and it started working instantly.

I am very busy currently but I'm really looking forward to setting up a proper network...

What I mostly love is that it is not chatty at all. Basically the "dial-on-demand" characteristic of the ppp VPNs is built-in (unless you set up keepalive). And the connection is restored in just two one roundtrip.
Do you have the CLI commands used? I tried to replicate the config I have in my Mikrotik in the Peer settings but I don't see anything in my server, no connection request. Also, checking in the Wireguard Documentation, when connecting to a server, the interface should not have a Listening Port setting. But in order create an interface in Mikrotik I do need to provide a Listening Port which kinda goes against the official Mikrotik documentation.

Lastly, being able to provide a host name instead of an IP address would be crucial...
 
tts001
just joined
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2020 11:38 pm

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Wed Sep 30, 2020 11:39 pm

+1 for Wireguard
 
User avatar
kiler129
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 255
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2015 4:32 pm
Location: IL, USA
Contact:

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Thu Oct 01, 2020 6:50 pm

+1 for Wireguard
It's already implemented and working quite nicely in 7.1beta2 :)
 
danbit
just joined
Posts: 5
Joined: Sun Aug 16, 2020 10:48 pm

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Mon Nov 02, 2020 10:25 pm

If some one is interested and finds useful, I put together a quick script that gets a Wireguard interface and updates the endpoint IP address according to the IP address the domain resolves. This is great for who is running their wireguard server behind a Dynamic IP address.

Hopefully we have a cleaner solution in the next beta version with the endpoint being able to be provided as a host name.
:local resolvedIP [:resolve "<domain>"];
:local interface 0;
:local currentIP [/interface/wireguard/peers get $interface endpoint];

:if ([:find $currentIP $resolvedIP] < 0) do={
    /log info "IP Changed to $resolvedIP"
    /log info ($resolvedIP . ":51820");
    /interface/wireguard/peers set $interface endpoint=($resolvedIP . ":51820");
    /log info "Wireguard Peer $interface endpoint updated";
    /interface/wireguard disable $interface
    /interface/wireguard enable $interface
}

 
mawebi
just joined
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 11:50 pm

Re: Feature Request - Wireguard Protocol

Mon Nov 09, 2020 2:45 pm

Has anyone been able to set mikrotik as a peer to another existing wireguard server?

I'm trying to set it up but I can't get it to work and in the current beta I can't get wireguard logging to better understand what is happening.
Hi, yes. I have a working peer of my Mikrotik ROS to a debian server running wireguard.
You will find my example setup here (for the client):
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=168231

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests