MikroTik

Is there any plans on supporting Speedify WAN bonding? I would really like this implemented into routerOS some how. I have mulitiple 4g LTE WANs and would love to be able to access this as a feature. Speedify has now released a linux Distribution for x86_64 and ARM/ARM64. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_Jo9RZrf5I

Thanks,

Yet another VPN provider...

What is "Speedify"? round-robin bonded openvpn-tunnels?

Yet another VPN provider...

What is "Speedify"? round-robin bonded openvpn-tunnels?

I dont think its a round robin approach or a load balancing vpn. It works at the packet level to bond two WAN connections into a single fat pipe. Their is some speed loss associated with it, example two 100mbps don't quite equal 200mbps more like 180mbsp but it is a great solution vs mushroom networks or peplink speedfusion bonding which could reach into the thousands for their routers and not to mention the cost of their cloud bonding solutions. Not to Mention that it is a very elegant solution vs trying to set up another server in the cloud and creating a bonded vpn tunnel. Need a wife and kids approved solution if you know what i mean.

I second this. Perhaps if Speedify just creates the configuration script needed..

For me will be better if Mikrotik implement SD WAN, is the same what Mikrotik have now with PCC, but a simple way of configuration!

Then go and start your own thread and ask for it, this is for Multi-WAN Bonding, and specifically for Speedify

That would be great, we would love to an integration as well

Perhaps if Speedify just creates the configuration script needed..

Agreed. I don't think mikrotik should be adding additional code to support fringe implementations at this stage (or if ever). There is so much work to do on core functionality first. If it can be implemented within the current functionality through some clever/complex configuration by all means lets have at it. But if it means adding more lines of code to ROS that just means more bugs, and there are enough of them already.

It's a router not a General population OS that you can install what you like into.

Keep it simple and do what they should be doing best *Routing*

Reviving this thread. Is there anything similar to PepLink's SpeedFusion for Mikrotik? It can be speedify, a generic SD-WAN solution or whatever. The only reason I keep a Peplink router is to use SpeedFusion over multiple LTE links. Being able to do this on Mikrotik, would be a gigantic win and a good revenue source for Mikrotik since this is inherently a subscription service.

I'm just here to say.... +1

...

Reviving this thread. Is there anything similar to PepLink's SpeedFusion for Mikrotik? It can be speedify, a generic SD-WAN solution or whatever. The only reason I keep a Peplink router is to use SpeedFusion over multiple LTE links. Being able to do this on Mikrotik, would be a gigantic win and a good revenue source for Mikrotik since this is inherently a subscription service.

I’m also looking for a better alternative to Peplink Speedfusion or OpenMPTCPRouter.

Especially one where I don’t have to provide my own VPS on the other side, and where the connection can be encrypted with OpenVPN or WireGuard.

That’s actually the only reason why I created an account for this forum.

I’m also looking for a better alternative to Peplink Speedfusion or OpenMPTCPRouter.
Especially one where I don’t have to provide my own VPS on the other side, and where the connection can be encrypted with OpenVPN or WireGuard.

At Oracle Cloud you can run a VPS at ARM for free with decent parameters. New ros7.1 give us new option to do that. I hope this can be possible all to finish your idea.

They put Zerotier on the routers... why not a package to support speedify?

I have been emailing with speedify.

They have a VPN set up where they send packets over MULTIPLE CHANNELS AT ONCE. These packets are assembled at a VPS that should be nearby. Then sent on to final destination.

The reverse is true when packets come back.

So yes... it can "Go faster" than one of your single services.
Your servers will use the IP address of the VPS.
When one ISP goes down, the connection to the VPS does not change IPs or break. It slows. This keeps connections from breaking.

Using Bigleaf for this costs several hundred dollars a month.

Speedify can do it on the device for a couple of bucks.

If I could put this INFRONT of my routers... this would be awesome. Plus a whole lot cheaper than BigLeaf.

Hey gotsprings, I think you can run speedify on a rasp pi........

Hey gotsprings, I think you can run speedify on a rasp pi........

I saw that. But then you are playing with a device that doesn't even have the proper ethernet jacks.

Plus... where could you get a Pi these days?

I wonder if I could use an old RB??? hmmm.

If I could put this INFRONT of my routers... this would be awesome. Plus a whole lot cheaper than BigLeaf.

So, I did this as a test using an Intel NUC with a couple of 4G and 5G links, and it "works" in that you have an internet connection. Whatever you hand off to will have an internal IP, and even the NUC on the Speedify side has an internal IP. With the standard package, there is no port forwarding, no IPv6 (from the last time I checked) and the max speed is a 1Gb link shared with other users. You can get a "Dedicated Server", which looks to be a VPS, for around 120 per month extra, which is also limited to 1Gb/s and has a 3TB bandwidth cap but does support static IPs and port forwarding... Ideally, if they offered the software for you to install on your instance and added IPv6 support, with, maybe, the option of routing IPs through the network, that would be handy. Another option would be to have Zerotier on your Mikrotik, then speedily in front. Route your static IP (v4 and/or v6) over Zerotier and happy days. Even better would be Zerotier supporting FULL load balancing...

The dedicated server... Provides for a public IP address and the ability to port forward.

That's 240 bucks a month in BigLeaf.

Closer to $83 in Speedify.

yea, BigLeaf will be more expensive... If you don't need more than 1Gb max speed, Speedify should do the job... Less than 2-300mb/s, you might even get away with non-dedicated.

Built a Ubuntu Desktop this week, on a box with 4 ethernet jacks, a 2.4 radio, and 4 USB. Installed speedify. Configured network manager and put it infront of my hAP AC2 after my ISP.

Seems to be working so far.

what kind of links do you have and what kind of speeds are you getting? whats the spec of the box infront of the mikrotik?

Qotom X86 Mini PC Q190G4N Intel celeron J1900 Processor, Quad core 2.0 GHz, 8GB RAM,64GB SSD, WiFi, Fanless Mini PC 4 LAN

I don't see any difference with a dedicated server... but thats with only one link right now. I need to get a second WAN for better testing.

When i hit the bypass button... 900/900. When I turn on speedify... drops down into the 300 range. I need to see if that is encryption or something else going on.

I don't think it's the encryption. Check other servers in your area on speedify. On my 2 links, totalling 3gb, I can never get about 650mb... the server has other users. That's the dedicated option.

Paid for a dedicated server.

I think there is a IP geolocation problem with it. Some services say I am not in the US. One service even told me I was in Canada.

I am located in Maryland and set the server as Virginia.

Couldn't access several sites.

Flipped to a non dedicated server and they worked.

The sub 300 thing...
I had the software on my Ubuntu Mini computer to sit in front of my Tik.

Put the software on my windows computer, and got almost the exact same numbers.

Tried with encryption on and off... I think it was actually quicker with it on. But not by much.

Sent a bunch logs over the weekend.

Hopefully I will hear something back this week.

But so far... This looks like a project I should abandon.

I have been doing some tests with zerotier but not on mikrotik (my rb5009 got rmaed and waiting for a replacement). Anyway, I got a 1gb and 2gb link and can current get around 3-400mb/s with it with load balancing. More tweaks are needed, but it does seem to be a little faster than speedify, cheaper (as in free) and I can use my own hardware and ip space...

I did/do run Zerotier on my SWITCH. So that's been there the whole time.

Using the NON dedicated server option... Zerotier still works.

But a 66% speed reduction. And some sites not working at all due to IP geolocation (which should have been a non issue when I bought a dedicated server)... They get one more week before I kill the dedicated server option.

The service in general will likely follow.

what i am using is just zerotier, without Speedify. I have a box on prem running Zerotier with 2 WAN links. i have a box in the cloud running Zerotier acting as a gateway. all traffic goes over the zetotier link to the box in the cloud. i skip Speedify altogether... the box in the cloud could be bumped in speed and be faster than what Speedify offer.

what i am using is just zerotier, without Speedify. I have a box on prem running Zerotier with 2 WAN links. i have a box in the cloud running Zerotier acting as a gateway. all traffic goes over the zetotier link to the box in the cloud. i skip Speedify altogether... the box in the cloud could be bumped in speed and be faster than what Speedify offer.

Ok I am more than intrigued... how are you using 2 WANs at once?

so, on linux, you can set Zerotier to use Multi Path (https://docs.zerotier.com/zerotier/multipath/). Its still somewhat early stages, and i cant get it to give me more than 4-500Mb/s over a 3Gb/s link, but its getting there...

I have moved onto the next thing to test...

OpenMPTCP.

How is it there is a config for EdgeRouters... But not Tiks?

Retasked that small PC to run OpenMPTCPRouter.

Speed test are in the 700s.

Have to use UDP for the VPN connection as the TCP connection would loose packets and get really long pings.

Will probably start a new thread for it.

However .. if Tiks can run OPENWRT... It would seem OpenMPTCP should work too.

Most mikrotiks cant run OpenWRT though... and the ones that do are actually X86 machines...

Hi!
ToH (Table of HW) for Openwrt compatible Mikrotik devices:

https://openwrt.org/toh/start?dataflt%5 ... D=Mikrotik

There are 73 devices on this list and lost of them are ARM or MIPS ....

W

Sorry couldn´t stand it...

But then it's running openwrt not mikrotik. It's like asking Apple for software support on a Mac that's running Windows.

Of course you don´t get support from MT for OpenWRT. If that´s an issue, then don´t install OpenWRT.
OpenWRT is a nice alternative for some cases (eg. if you don´t get along well with RoS but have 10 years of Linux experience or something is missing from RoS which you desperately need).

But then it's running openwrt not mikrotik. It's like asking Apple for software support on a Mac that's running Windows.

Maybe they could put it in a container.

Hmmm.... containers... That might just work... even with Speedify... now thats interesting...

One key characteristic of Multipath TCP (MPTCP) is its interaction with traditional TCP traffic. Implementing MPTCP can result in a scenario akin to a 'TCP within TCP' setup, which has been consistently shown to introduce performance issues. For scenarios demanding higher throughput, alternatives like broadband bonding are often more appropriate. Specifically, when considering cellular networks, the standard approaches to MPTCP may falter when there's even minor performance variance between bonded Wide Area Networks (WANs). In such instances, broadband bonding solutions, such as those offered by Mushroom Networks, could be an effective remedy, particularly for applications like home-office setups.

Not sure where MPTCP is coming in here. Although agree that MPTCP is more for applications needing control, than as network bonding protocol.

Speedify uses UDP-based DLTS* to setup tunnels to some cloud server, so it's not TCP. I'd imagine their Linux version could be put in a /container similar to mDNS where the container gets a trunk. Only difference from the mDNS container approach is that you need provide WANs on the trunk to VETH, not LANs. e.g. a trunk containing multiple VLANs, each with a unique routing path/rules. You'd need have/setup new VLANs to map one-to-one to a particular WAN path via firewall manage or /routing/rule for each "VLAN WANs" provided by a vlan-filtering=yes bridge to the VETH. So likely possible, but complex.

I tried Speedify in past on a Linux VM. It works. But using their shared servers... redundancy was fine (e.g. if you lost a link, it was maybe a few dropped pings)... more variable on using all of the available bandwidth. Did also try their dedicated server, and that was much more consistent, but more expensive. Now outside one project a while back, I cannot say how well it works today. Nor how well it work in a container, especially if you had a lot of bandwidth.

I generally use load balancing and failover if I can since all the bonding stuff gets messy, not just Speedify. IMO, if you have a lot of connection flows, often load balancing (ECMP, PCC, etc) is better than bonding since you're not adding latency to do bonding (plus the added complexity, fragility, single-point-of-failure). If the goal is seeing a high number of a speedtest, bonding helps for that. But something like a web page likely finish loading quicker using load balancing than via any kinda bonding.

*Side note: DLTS is also what CAPsMAN forwarding mode uses although obviously you cannot use it for bonding.

Wow... Why did this come back from the dead?

I bought a 2 year Speedify package that is probably about to expire.

I abandoned this project almost 2 years ago.

The dedicated server was getting flagged as a VPN by multiple services and I was constantly writing bypass exceptions. It just took up too much time for the results I was getting. Hell even my banking website would kick me off.

Now as for why...

I was standing on the tracks watching the train coming...

I knew very soon that load balancing and failover wasn't going to cut it.

Between VoIP, Wifi calling, video conference, and the real driving force... Streaming Services. I was sure were all going to become "the pain" they have.

Load balancing and failover do nothing for you when a connection gets Shakey in a call. If you happen to be in the feed that drops... The change in IP address often requires waiting for the service to reestablish then calling back. After a whole bunch of... "Can you hear me now???"

Now internet connected video services... Same problem with Shakey connections. But the real "F--k Me!"... When a service sees you connect from multiple ISPs. Causing a violation of their TOS. Shutting off the stream or even forcing you to log back in. "Unlimited streams within the home?" That relies on being on the same IP address. So you can't split up the traffic. And a failover will sign you out.

I finally gave in an accepted that Big Leaf may be expensive... But the alternative has "enough issues, it's not worth the effort."

Only really annoying problem... My partner retired. Making me a one man shop. Big Leaf has a rule specifically in their dealer agreement precluding "one man shows" from being a direct dealer. So I am stuck in limbo now. Trying to line up enough accounts to present Big Leaf that they would let me resell their services.

BTW... "The gotchas" i was expecting back in 2020... Are starting to happen in client networks.

Between VoIP, Wifi calling, video conference, and the real driving force... Streaming Services.

Oh there are use cases for bonding for sure. I didn't look too closely at the timestamps here. Been at this problem for a long while myself too, mainly on the LTE side of multiwan. I settled on Peplinks for bonding when it's needed, generally with wAPacR/etc with own modems to get LTE outside. But it's expensive and relatively inflexible as a standalone router.

But I didn't think speedify was bad, just not "enterprise ready". But perhaps as a container on RB5009 for SOHO with modest-sized links (e.g. not multiple 1G fibers lines), maybe it work okay? Speedify was the best of the lot of these "easy-to-use" with simple licensing category. But as @gotsprings notes, you do get what you pay for.

It just a shame Mikrotik doesn't offer much help here. I think they're leaving a lot of money on the table. There is still NO great bonding solution out there IMO – all have some kinda suboptimal tradeoff (whether performance or costs or complexity).