Beta ASUS RT-AX86U/S Series Firmware version 9.0.0.4.388.20477 (2022/08/09)

[Tech9]

My WireGuard performance is up there with the ISP’s max throughput.

It does disable NAT acceleration. If you see way over 350Mbps, check for IPv6 leaks.

 

[Tech9]

Node picture:

No luck with AC86U as Node:

I may have to use the most used button on Asus routers again.

 

[RMerlin]

Another question would be: Can WireGuard even benefit from hardware acceleration?

People are talking about NAT acceleration here, not crypto acceleration. NAT acceleration is necessary to hit WAN speeds higher than 400 Mbps, regardless of the VPN.

As for crypto acceleration, Wireguard uses a different cipher (Chacha20) than what is hardware-accelerated by the CPU or the SPU (AES).

 

[princi]

People are talking about NAT acceleration here, not crypto acceleration. NAT acceleration is necessary to hit WAN speeds higher than 400 Mbps, regardless of the VPN.

As for crypto acceleration, Wireguard uses a different cipher (Chacha20) than what is hardware-accelerated by the CPU or the SPU (AES).

Thanks. Question answered. I was talking about crypto acceleration.

 

[Portalnet]

Version 9.0.0.4.388.20477 Beta Version

2022/08/09 67.97 MBytes

4. Supported new devices connection notification.

Does this option work for you? Because it has notified me several times on my smartphone (nadroid) and it does not notify anymore.

 

[Morpheus2020]

In case it wasn't working as expected and Broadcom fixed the drivers to obey DFS regulations better, your 160MHz issue is permanent. The situation with 160MHz wide channel on 5GHz is similar to 40MHz wide channel on 2.4GHz - it's an available option, but not guaranteed. Also, due to some geopolitical situations you may have more RF activity around your place. Whatever was working before may no longer work.

Test this beta and see if there are any Wi-Fi performance differences in your environment. This is the main purpose of this release - testing.

Connecting an 80MHz device when no 160MHz device is connected to the router will cause the router to drop from 160MHz to 80MHz. I don't think this has anything to do with DFS. I think this is a bug that lasts three versions.

 

[bbunge]

Connecting an 80MHz device when no 160MHz device is connected to the router will cause the router to drop from 160MHz to 80MHz. I don't think this has anything to do with DFS. I think this is a bug that lasts three versions.

Not a router bug but likely a client bug. There is nothing wrong with the router changing bandwidth based on client requirement. Look to your clients for their bugs. Maybe your smart clients are not so smart.

 

[Morpheus2020]

Not a router bug but likely a client bug. There is nothing wrong with the router changing bandwidth based on client requirement. Look to your clients for their bugs. Maybe your smart clients are not so smart.

This problem has been confirmed many times by my friends and on this forum, and I can confirm that this is an Asus bug.
By the way, my client is an iPhone with the latest iOS.

 

[neil0311]

Not a router bug but likely a client bug. There is nothing wrong with the router changing bandwidth based on client requirement. Look to your clients for their bugs. Maybe your smart clients are not so smart.

You seem completely unwilling to acknowledge that 160 isn’t working correctly. Not sure why…but it is not working correctly.

For years I have run a AX88U and now AX86U. I’ve been able to set to 160 and have it remain at 160, whether my clients that can do 160 are connected at that moment or not.

Now I set to 160 and even when my 160 clients are running and connected, the router drops to 80 and won’t go back. That’s been the case for the last 2 released firmware version and for this beta. Going back to the version from Jan fixes the problem.

They didn’t build a new Air Force base next to my house or put up a radar installation down the street last week. And the problem is resolved by back revving. It’s a bug.

 

[bbunge]

You seem completely unwilling to acknowledge that 160 isn’t working correctly. Not sure why…but it is not working correctly.

Well, it is working correctly for me and I assume for many others. It is the few who are complaining about it so it seems it is your environment/clients that likely are the issue.

 

[neil0311]

Well, it is working correctly for me and I assume for many others. It is the few who are complaining about it so it seems it is your environment/clients that likely are the issue.

I’ve seen multiple people across the 2 released and this beta firmware say they’ve had issues with 160 and it’s not working properly. They have the same issues.

So glad it’s working for you, but when the only variable is the firmware, and you can repeatably reproduce and fix the issue at will by revving the firmware build…it’s a bug.

I’m fine staying on the Jan rev forever if necessary, but there’s obviously a problem.

 

[iFrogMac]

Well, it is working correctly for me and I assume for many others. It is the few who are complaining about it so it seems it is your environment/clients that likely are the issue.

That's why I changed routers, I like the Asus, and I've given it a fair chance for a few months in my environment. I figured it was more productive to just go back to something I know works for me instead of contuse to complain about it.
For me, the Asus RT-AX86U has been probably about 98% reliable it's just those few things that have issues. Everyone's setup is different, and it's not a one size fits all. Not saying I'll never use the RT-AX86U ever again, it's just right now after trying everything and still having occasional problems, switching hardware was the better solution.

 

[Morpheus2020]

You seem completely unwilling to acknowledge that 160 isn’t working correctly. Not sure why…but it is not working correctly.

For years I have run a AX88U and now AX86U. I’ve been able to set to 160 and have it remain at 160, whether my clients that can do 160 are connected at that moment or not.

Now I set to 160 and even when my 160 clients are running and connected, the router drops to 80 and won’t go back. That’s been the case for the last 2 released firmware version and for this beta. Going back to the version from Jan fixes the problem.

They didn’t build a new Air Force base next to my house or put up a radar installation down the street last week. And the problem is resolved by back revving. It’s a bug.

If you are using the official firmware, you can report this issue via the WebUI. I've given up on using the official firmware. Asus said they don't deal with third-party firmware issues, and suggested I flash back to the official firmware before feedback. It is too time consuming.

 

[neil0311]

If you are using the official firmware, you can report this issue via the WebUI. I've given up on using the official firmware. Asus said they don't deal with third-party firmware issues, and suggested I flash back to the official firmware before feedback. It is too time consuming.

Yeah this is the official firmware.

 

[OzarkEdge]

My IPv4 firewall is disabled by default... is this normal?

OE

 

[bbunge]

My IPv4 firewall is disabled by default... is this normal?

View attachment 43686

OE

Good catch. My IPV4 was disabled, too. IPV6 was enabled but I do not is IPV6.

No, not normal.

 

[Paliv]

Was this checked to see if it was actually disabled with a port checker? The IPV4 Firewall option isn't in 386.xx firmware, and I don't think there was ever a separate option. It's possible that toggle doesn't do anything yet.

 

[OzarkEdge]

My IPv4 firewall is disabled by default... is this normal?

View attachment 43686

OE

Reverting to 386_49599 looks like this, which also seems different from before:

OE

 

[RMerlin]

Check with iptables. I think that option is only enabled if you want to add manual rules to the IPv4 tables. If you don't need additional rules, it can be left disabled, which is different from the Enable Firewall option at the top of the page.

 

[bbunge]

Check with iptables. I think that option is only enabled if you want to add manual rules to the IPv4 tables. If you don't need additional rules, it can be left disabled, which is different from the Enable Firewall option at the top of the page.

Then why is the IPV6 firewall enabled by default and has no entries in the Inbound Firewall Rules? This may not have an answer and will have to wait for Asus final "release."