Community discussions

MikroTik App
 
andryan
newbie
Topic Author
Posts: 40
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2007 10:33 pm
Location: Jakarta, Indonesia
Contact:

Unmigrated IP Rules, non-responsive (in)active IP->Routes display and routes cache issues

Wed Mar 03, 2021 1:24 pm

Hi,

I would like to report 3 issues related to ROS 7. I am using ROS v7.1beta4 on both x86 CHR and RB450Gx4. I'm trying to take advantage of Wireguard because SSTP seems to be buggy/broken in v6.48.1 with plenty of dropped packets (where network conditions are not an issue) for my live video streaming VPN tunnels.

When I was working on the configuration, I came across 3 issues. First one is a minor issue related to Winbox. The IP -> Routes window in Winbox 3.27 needed to be closed and reopened before active/inactive routes are properly reflected, unlike v6.xx where routes changes are displayed immediately on Winbox. Luckily, I had read the forum post where we are reminded that Winbox display is still buggy and used console to confirm the routes changes.

I also noticed that in ROS v7.1beta4 connection/VPN sessions do not get affected by route changes (in my case, distance manipulation) nor route deletion, OTOH route additions and link state changes on physical interfaces take effect immediately. Whenever I add a new route and immediately the connection/VPN sessions affected by the route addition stop working. Is this a bug or simply due to route cache not being cleared when routes changes/deletions happen? Virtual interfaces link state changes affecting active connection sessions seem to be buggy. For the time being, disabling and reenabling the interfaces can address the problem.

IP - Routes -> Rules is now at Routing -> Rules, which is great (especially the Routing -> Tables menu), but upgrading from v6.48.1 to 7.1beta4 dropped ALL of my routing rules. I export'd the rules and copy pasted the rules into /routing rules but the "action=lookup" was not added by default so the rules were invalid and thus inactive. It would be nice for the ROS 7 console to interactively ask for the missing value of "action" field.

On a side note, Wireguard seems to use more CPU than v6.48.1's SSTP, but the CPU load seems to be spread across multiple cores and does not have the same dropped packets problem as SSTP.


Cheers,
Andryan

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests