Jump to content

Simone

Forum Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    13

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Simone

    MAP-T

    in Feature Requests

    Posted · Edited by Simone

    I also recently got the Titan 2nd generation AX, and I see that the speedtest in IPv4 reaches 930 Mbps in IPv4 (https://www.speedtest.net/result/c/948d22c8-1d32-4bf1-aa9f-c0bcc8e507bc - https://www.speedtest.net/result/c/69d52820-cf76-45c5-a7b5-54e0f2ee444e) compliments for the implementation.

     

    On 10/17/2022 at 10:57 AM, Le ecureuil said:

    It needs to be investigated. Unfortunately there is no possibility to check whether jumbo or baby jumbo are available, so we must choose a "safe for all" defaults: so they will be 1480 on mapt and 1500 on ipv6. But of course you and anyone who sure in availability of baby jumbo can enable it anytime.

    If I understood @fl4co correctly, the commands to increase the MTU should be: 

    interface GigabitEthernet0 ip mtu 1520
interface GigabitEthernet0/Vlan101 ip mtu 1520
interface GigabitEthernet0/Vlan101/MapT0 ip mtu 1520

    but they do not work and the maximum MTU that can be set is 1514

     

     

    MAP-T

    in Feature Requests

    Posted

    19 minutes ago, Le ecureuil said:

    Do you want to have 900 dl / 900 ul in IPv4 as MAP-T? As I understand from your results download speed is good enough, but upload stuck on 250 mbps. Please send us (to official support) self-test file taken in exact moment when you run speedtest for upload (it's better to increase test time to 1 minute for example to easy your task if possible).

    No, the ideal would be to have a higher download speed, i.e. up to 930 Mbps, of course the values are good (and I don't ask more for a MISP, in fact I want to try it as soon as the Keenetic Hopper or the Keenetic Sprinter come out)., but there is always a delta of 150-200 Mbps compared to the speed the line offers.

    The line is limited to 300 Mbps upload.

    I can certainly send the data to support. 

    24 minutes ago, Le ecureuil said:

    The most convenient solution is to enable TCP MSS tuning, and to set the default value of MAP-T interface to 'MTU of parent - 20' bytes. We will think of this. Of course you can override this settings in cli, but as default for the vast majority it is enough.

    I don't agree that this is OK for most people that use MAP-T, having an easy way to set the MTU to 1500 and not 1480 allows you to have a higher MTU in VPNs and have the highest value without jumbo frames possible.
    I also believe that many providers using MAP-T/E will increase the standard MTU to have the mini jumbo frames and put a v4 MTU at 1500.

    In any case, should I increase the value on MapT0?

    MAP-T

    in Feature Requests

    Posted · Edited by Simone
    add more ipv4 speedtest + test for 3.9 beta 1 + mtu

    FTTH 1000/300 Mbps Sky MAP-T with Keenetic HERO AXimage.thumb.png.2cc7b57b231d2775f596e522ee014c50.png

    Honestly, I am incredulous of the performance (in IPv4 with offloading), I am used to seeing poor results on most of the hardware I have seen/tested.

    I want to congratulate all the Keenetic staff who did a great job. 

    In particular a raspberry pi only works with a customised image made by a forum.fibra.click user that modifies the load balancing management between the cpu's for a moment and requires a specific NIC tp link.

    Despite this, very good performance is only achieved in IPv6, a speedtest server in IPv4 witout offloading gives results in line with or worse than other devices with OpenWrt, but with offloading the performance are good!. In any case, the values eventually settle at very similar devices such as the belkin ax3200 with a very similar hw.

     

    3.8.5 (no offloading)

    Spoiler

    image.thumb.png.379b42bbf967ea512df771d550feacf2.png

    image.thumb.png.675e49c2df9775fe4b723d6d396e234a.png

    Server IPv6: 50955, 50954, 11427

    Server IPv4: 7839, 4302, 27276

    image.thumb.png.cea6d1a58b83c0507ba6aef715b2ee35.png

    Dual stack server with IPv6 disabled

    3.9 Beta 1 (offloading)

    Spoiler

    image.thumb.png.d2be66ca600f12004adfe39af69821ac.png

    Only IPv4 server

     

    Then we come to the MTU side, which has never been written about on this forum but I imagine the engineers who have worked on it know: MAP-T requires an extra 20 bytes of MTU per packet in IPv4, there are two solutions:

    1. increase the IPv6 MTU to 1520
    2. decrease the IPv4 MTU to 1480

    If not handled correctly this causes problems on sites such as atm.it, ebay.

    All of these sites do, so again I congratulate the person who made this implementation. What's more, it works the site that never worked in the openwrt implementation of MAP-T www1.sky.com/opensourcesoftware/

    As you can see from speedguide.net/analyzer.php it is reduced to 1480 because MTUs above 1500 are not supported, the other option would also be convenient.

    Quote

    « SpeedGuide.net TCP Analyzer Results » 
    Tested on: 2022.10.16 07:36 
    IP address: 101.58.xxx.xxx 
    Client OS/browser: Windows 10 (Chrome 106.0.0.0) 
     
    TCP options string: 020405a00103030801010402 
    MSS: 1440 
    MTU: 1480 
    TCP Window: 263424 (not multiple of MSS) 
    RWIN Scaling: 8 bits (2^8=256) 
    Unscaled RWIN : 1029 
    Recommended RWINs: 63360, 126720, 253440, 506880, 1013760 
    BDP limit (200ms): 1054 Mbps (105 Megabytes/s) 
    BDP limit (500ms): 421 Mbps (42 Megabytes/s) 
    MTU Discovery: OFF 
    TTL: 53 
    Timestamps: OFF 
    SACKs: ON 
    IP ToS: 00000000 (0) 

    what is missing from this implementation?

    • implementation of the possibility of requesting an IPv6 prefix (sky leaves the possibility of requesting a prefix that you have already obtained via ia_pd), this was implemented by a user of the forum.fibre.click on openwrt, the patch can be found here https://github.com/edofullin/odhcp6c
    • Jumbo Frame to allow you to have a MTU > 1500 and thus not have to have a 1480 MTU in IPv4. (the OP tells me it is possible via CLI, as soon as I have some time I will test it)
    • Better IPv4 performance, performance in IPv6 is very good (I hope that improving the hw/sw offloading will bring about the canonical 930 Mbps in IPv4).
    • Thanks 1
    • Upvote 4

    MAP-E

    in Feature Requests

    Posted

    23 minutes ago, vst said:

    New chipsets (not MT7621, MT7628) support hardware acceleration, but it's too early for us to talk about their work.

    However, we have a fairly good software acceleration module...

    New chipsets like MT7622B (which is not released in Europe)? or as products not yet released with wifi 6 (not even in russia)?

    I knew that broadcom had a hardware-accelerated implementation of MAP-T, but it was not so well working according to Sky Italia.

    I'm happy for the software acceleration.

    It would still be interesting to see if you get at least 500 Mbps with MAP-T.

     

     

    MAP-E

    in Feature Requests

    Posted · Edited by Simone

    1 hour ago, vst said:

    By the way, we have implemented map-t (Sky 1:16), but so far only in pre-alpha versions.

    I am very happy with this information, then I will get a Keenetic to try it ASAP. 

    Can you get information on the presence or absence of hardware acceleration and performance?

    1 hour ago, vst said:

    It seems that statically configurable 4v6 is faster to implement than MAP-E.

    I thought so, since it seems to be compatible with a high number of devices anyway.

    1 hour ago, vst said:

    Both MAP-E, 4in6 are on our TODO list right after MAP-T.

    Very good!

    • Thanks 1

    MAP-E

    in Feature Requests

    Posted

    Today the French mobile operator Free/Iliad, launched its fiber offering in Italy, similar to Sky for the lack of IPv4 the Iliad fiber uses MAP-E and a 4in6 tunnel (rfc2473). 

    In France it uses since 2015 in non-densely populated areas a version of MAP-E a moment acerbic apparently from French forums, also often referred to as 4rd (although it has nothing to do with RFC 7600), as configuration from DHCPv6 does not seem possible.

    The operator offers very high speeds in terms of Gbps, despite this in areas where the deployment of ftth is older offers the classic speed of 1Gbps. A keenetic router as long as it works well could be a good solution for cities where there is the maximum limit of 1Gbps (like Milan, Turin and Bologna, 3 of the most important cities in Italy).

    From the guides for the free router it seems that it is possible to configure IPv4 even without MAP-E support, most likely it is part of a separate pool to offer IP 1:1 to those who request it, through a 4in6 tunnel (rfc2473). If the router supports MAP-E in Italy, at least from the first information it seems that it can be configured by DHCPv6 (unlike in France).

    From early February we will know more information about IPv4 share ratio and other details about MAP-E, like if it uses many disjointed ranges like Sky or few contiguous ranges like in France.

    I wanted to know if along with MAP-T development there is MAP-E development, and if keenetic support 4in6 tunnels (rfc2473).

    If I am not mistaken MAP-E is also used in Japan with a share of 1:256.

    • Thanks 2
    • Upvote 2

    MAP-T

    in Feature Requests

    Posted

    I am also interested to know if there is any news, Sky Italia is offering I think the best offer in the field of connections, it's a shame that I'm covered by FTTC/VDSL and unfortunately there are no third party CPE compatible with MAP-T and FTTC (if not using unlocked and modded modems of the former incumbent as it uses a very pure OpenWrt*), so I'm very interested to know if MAP-T support will arrive or not in the short time.

    *also with MAP-T 1:X with X != 1 and a third party CPE with OpenWrt, has the big problem that only the first range of ports is used, so most of the port of the IP address is wasted.

×
×
  • Create New...