[ 388.2 alpha Build(s) ] Testing available build(s)

[Damit1]

AX56U - 27 days of uptime, 0 issuez watched.
Waiting for my main AX88U to get its own new GPL.

 

[Wisiwyg]

This is a Test Firmware Build, expect bugs.

This...

 

[Sonyrolfy]

Just curious if OpenVPN 2.6.0. could be implemented by RMerlin in the next alpha/beta? Interesting due to data channel offloading and increased speed in this release. And if/when eventually this release will be implemented in non-AX models. Is a newer kernel relevant for non-ax models?

 

[octopus]

Just curious if OpenVPN 2.6.0. could be implemented by RMerlin in the next alpha/beta? Interesting due to data channel offloading and increased speed in this release. And if/when eventually this release will be implemented in non-AX models. Is a newer kernel relevant for non-ax models?

Commits · RMerl/asuswrt-merlin.ng

Third party firmware for Asus routers (newer codebase) - Commits · RMerl/asuswrt-merlin.ng

github.com

 

[RMerlin]

Interesting due to data channel offloading

DCO support is not possible, it requires kernel 5.3 or newer.

 

[Sonyrolfy]

DCO support is not possible, it requires kernel 5.3 or newer.

Yes thats is where i was afraid of. Im not into the kernels, but a quick search on the internet is the release of the 5.3.18 kernel was in 2019. Is there any asus router who will support the new kernel?

 

[RMerlin]

Yes thats is where i was afraid of. Im not into the kernels, but a quick search on the internet is the release of the 5.3.18 kernel was in 2019. Is there any asus router who will support the new kernel?

Kernel version is determined by the SoC manufacturer (Broadcom in this case). They don`t upgrade kernels, once a platform is launched, it stays on that kernel.

The current newest Broadcom platform used by the recent Pro models is based on kernel 4.19.

 

[naznaznaz]

Is it possible to schedule a time that will enable the RGB and LEDs to turn on and off automatically?

 

[Yota]

DCO support is not possible, it requires kernel 5.3 or newer.

Do you think it will work on the current kernels of asus routers?

GitHub - OpenVPN/ovpn-dco: OpenVPN Data Channel Offload in the linux kernel

OpenVPN Data Channel Offload in the linux kernel. Contribute to OpenVPN/ovpn-dco development by creating an account on GitHub.

github.com

** Kernel compatibility **
ovpn-dco is developed against the latest David Miller's net-next tree.
However, a compat layer is provided to allow people to compile ovpn-dco
against older kernel versions.

 

[RMerlin]

Do you think it will work on the current kernels of asus routers?

No. As I said, the newest routers use 4.19, and the DCO module requires 5.3.

 

[Yota]

No. As I said, the newest routers use 4.19, and the DCO module requires 5.3.

Ok, I just thought their README was implying that it could be backported to older kernels.


EDIT:
Well, it does look like a backport is possible, at least someone tried to port to the kernel 4.4, although that's still too new for us.

I hope that with the launch of DCO, more developers will join, and maybe someone will make a ported version.


EDIT2:
For older kernels that don't support DCO maybe take a look at this:

We had performance issues with OpenVPN some years back due to context-switching of the TUN/TAP devices having a syscall for every packet read op. An optimized userspace clone of OpenVPN was therefore created called fastd. It is faster than OpenVPN. But we still had the context switch bottleneck. Therefore I wrote a hacky patch for fastd to utilize io_uring. With that the context switch bottleneck is gone.
Maybe you could adopt this for the OpenVPN userspace version to reach a performance similar to the kernel module:

Mainstream some day? · Issue #1 · OpenVPN/ovpn-dco

Hi! I've been fiddling with VPNs for some years now. Did you write this module due to performance reasons? Shall this be a mainstream module some day? We had performance issues with OpenVPN some ye...

github.com

 

[RMerlin]

Ok, I just thought their README was implying that it could be backported to older kernels.

The 5.3 support itself already involves multiple backports, as the DCO code is designed to work against the latest kernel. Going further back is far more difficult. For instance there are IPv6-related networking stack changes around 5.1-5.3 that cannot be easily worked around if one wanted to go even further back with kernel support.

 

[Sonyrolfy]

Kernel version is determined by the SoC manufacturer (Broadcom in this case). They don`t upgrade kernels, once a platform is launched, it stays on that kernel.

The current newest Broadcom platform used by the recent Pro models is based on kernel 4.19.

Thanks, Rmerlin I got it, kernels aren’t updated due to their products with a Broadcom soc. The only why to get it working is to backport it and comes with a lot of challenges to make it work. I don’t know if this is just a timeframe for Broadcom to create their soc with a newer kernel and we buy a new ASUS router in time or Asus themselves will make DCO work on older kernels and routers???

The buzz with offloading is especially interesting now that internet speeds are getting faster. For normal work and some downloading an average of 200-250 mbps is enough on vpn. Now that WG is working on the AX models and with script on AC models we can achieve higher speeds, but some of us benefit from a vpn. We just wait and see if this DCO will be the next big step.

 

[torstein]

No. As I said, the newest routers use 4.19, and the DCO module requires 5.3.

What do you think is the reasoning behind never updating the kernel? Seems like it would be beneficial in terms of security, performance and features, no? Disclaimer: I'm just curious, but know none of this.

 

[Smokey613]

What do you think is the reasoning behind never updating the kernel? Seems like it would be beneficial in terms of security, performance and features, no? Disclaimer: I'm just curious, but know none of this.

It may be the later kernels consume more resources and also may not offer any real advantages in the limited use case of a wifi router.

Most users of RMerlin are doing a lot more with these home routers than was ever intended by Asus.

 

[RMerlin]

What do you think is the reasoning behind never updating the kernel?

This is the norm in the embedded device space, same thing with Android phones - your phone will never get a kernel upgrade throughout its lifecycle. My current smartphone has an older kernel version than my router. Main reason is probably it would require some extensive work with drivers, sometimes major changes may be necessary with the drivers, having to revalidate compatibility, etc... Plus afterward you have all the potential userspace content that may also require updates (like iptables), which once again may break things.

In short, a kernel upgrade is rarely just a drop in-place update, it has potential impact of the rest of the software stack. And it's rarely worth the trouble.

Seems like it would be beneficial in terms of security

No, as a new kernel may introduce new issues. Backporting security fixes is the safest route there. This is why products tend to use LTS kernel releases.

 

[Yota]

This is the norm in the embedded device space, same thing with Android phones - your phone will never get a kernel upgrade throughout its lifecycle. My current smartphone has an older kernel version than my router. Main reason is probably it would require some extensive work with drivers, sometimes major changes may be necessary with the drivers, having to revalidate compatibility, etc... Plus afterward you have all the potential userspace content that may also require updates (like iptables), which once again may break things.

It's interesting that Apple and Microsoft always update their kernels in their major updates, even though these are very different systems, because one of them has full control over the hardware and software they own, and the other is compatible with old drivers.

Android is not a good example because no manufacturer has full control over every component in an Android phone, and they rely heavily on the permissions Qualcomm, Broadcom, and other vendors give them. Google has been trying to change all this, launching measures such as Project Treble and The Generic Kernel Image (GKI), but this is not enough to allow manufacturers to fully update the kernel, but as more specifications are established and introduced, Android will one day get rid of the shackles of not being able to update the kernel.

IMHO what's happening on routers is exactly what happened to Android, so when one day Android can update the kernel like iOS, we have to rethink our routers, and why.

 

[RMerlin]

Android is not a good example

Yet it is the model that most closely matches the router market, where you have a company that develops the SOC and its SDK, and third parties that develop the hardware and the operating system, use that SOC with its related SDK, and implement the rest of the software stack around it.

Apple controls everything from top to bottom, and Microsoft develops APIs specifically to allow easier third party integration with their drivers. And when Microsoft changes that API, they tend to still support the old API for quite some time. Things like WDDM and NDIS are why you can get a new major Windows release and generally still be able to reuse existing drivers. This wasn't always the case however, Windows XP and Vista both required new drivers to work properly.

 

[Yota]

Yet it is the model that most closely matches the router market, where you have a company that develops the SOC and its SDK, and third parties that develop the hardware and the operating system, use that SOC with its related SDK, and implement the rest of the software stack around it.

Apple controls everything from top to bottom, and Microsoft develops APIs specifically to allow easier third party integration with their drivers. And when Microsoft changes that API, they tend to still support the old API for quite some time. Things like WDDM and NDIS are why you can get a new major Windows release and generally still be able to reuse existing drivers. This wasn't always the case however, Windows XP and Vista both required new drivers to work properly.

Google is building a set of specifications like Microsoft has done. With GKI 2.0 in the future we will be able to upgrade the kernel independently. It's a long way off, at least until Android 15, but it's already under development.

But in the router, there is no strong manufacturer trying to lead the change.


It's also particularly interesting that when a driver doesn't work on Windows, the user complains directly to the driver vendor, rather than to the operating system itself.

Today if a driver on a router doesn't work, we complain to Asus.

Microsoft allows users to participate in driver management, which may make driver providers more active in adapting to new systems.

 

[bon]

Does this firmware allow hardware acceleration with WG enabled? That was a kicker for me