It has not been tested whether fasttracking the Wireguard connection would increase performance All the WireGuard traffic only matched the last (8th) rule and was accepted. The IP firewall contained 8 simple accept and fasttrack rules. The CRS309 元 hardware offloading capability was disabled. The virtual server was connected to the CRS309 as default gateway within a separate VLAN that was designed to be routed.
The Desktop was connected to the CRS309-1G-8S+ using Wireguard. Scenario: Routing from Wireguard to local routed VLAN With IP firewall Whereas the command on the server was netcat -vvnlp 2222 > /dev/nullĪs we expected with an uncompressed protocol like Wireguard, there is no difference if you pipe the data from /dev/urandom as opposed to /dev/zero. The command on the Desktop was dd if=/dev/urandom bs=100M | netcat -v 10.185.244.199 2222 Hitherto, it is unknown to us whether PSKs will have an impact on throughput. Wireguard was being used without preshared keys.
Note that the L2 switching infrastructure (consisting only of MikroTik CRS3xx and CRS610 switching with complete hardware offloading) is ignored here because due to 100% hardware offloading to the marvelous Marvell switch chips it has orders of magnitude higher performance compared to any 元 function, hence it will only have minimal impact only the overall performance. Our test setup consists of a Desktop PC with 1GBase-T connection and a virtualized server on XCP-NG, attached with a 10GB shared connection, both running Ubuntu. We tested the throughput of the new Wireguard functionality MikroTik CRS309-1G-8S+ running on RouterOS 7.1beta6. Also see Wireguard bandwidth performance of the MikroTik CRS326-24G-2S+
0 kommentar(er)
