Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Could you please try running WireSock with logging enabled and share the log? It may provide insights into what went wrong.
What method do you employ to measure throughput? Although it’s commonly acceptable to gauge bandwidth using Speedtest.net or Fast.com, relying solely on internet-based services for throughput testing may lack precision. For more accurate results, I suggest setting up another device within your network, ideally connected directly to your wireless router via cable. Configure this device to run iperf3 in server mode. Then, on your laptop, utilize iperf3 in client mode, conducting tests in both direct and reverse orders with a minimum of 8 simultaneous TCP sessions. This approach will yield more reliable and trustworthy results.
i guess that was a typo?
Yes, my fault. I have fixed it.
i do have a DNS (ipv4 and ipv6, though i’m not sure what the ipv6 is for) specified in the config, in the [Interface] section. so in that case my DNS queries should be going to that specified server, but they’re not…?
Your queries may not be directed to the Wireguard DNS if the default DNS server is included in the DisallowedIps list, or if DNSCACHE is part of the DisallowedApps. For instance, if you add your LAN subnet to DisallowedIps and your DNS server resides within this subnet, then DNS queries will be routed to your LAN DNS server instead Wireguard one.
my config does not have an MTU specified
I assume you’re referring to DNS, correct? If your Wireguard configuration lacks a DNS server, then all DNS queries will default to your regular DNS settings. Consequently, if a website is restricted in your country, by your Internet Service Provider (ISP), or through parental controls, access to these sites may be blocked at DNS level.
Are you running Wiresock in transparent mode or using a virtual adapter (-lac command line switch)?
DNS handling presents a challenge due to the nature of Windows, where all DNS queries originate from the DNSCACHE process, making it difficult to discern the requesting application. By default, if you have a DNS specified in your Wireguard configuration, all DNS queries will be intercepted and routed through the tunnel to the designated DNS server. However, you can modify this behavior by specifying DNSCACHE in DisallowedApps or adding the DNS server to DisallowedIPs.
If you’re experiencing issues with DNS resolution, it’s likely that DNS queries or responses are being routed incorrectly, or the DNS server they’re forwarded to is down. In such instances, it would be beneficial to examine packet captures to determine the flow of data and whether responses are being received.
I lack sufficient information about your setup and the tools you use for measurements. The issue could stem from various sources, such as incorrect measuring software or conflicts with low-level software installations. To troubleshoot effectively, I recommend conducting tests on a fresh system. Alternatively, consider disabling any virtual bridges or software switches from virtualization software like Hyper-V, VirtualBox, or VMWare.
Out of curiosity, I conducted a similar test on my LG Gram Windows 11 laptop equipped with an Intel(R) Wi-Fi 6E AX211 adapter, using the Speedtest website. Here are the results: https://www.speedtest.net/result/15925878463 without dnstrace active and https://www.speedtest.net/result/15925874186 with it enabled.
Is the outdated PerfTest responsible alone for the reduced download speed ( 12 Mbit/sec —> 0.1 Mbit/sec ) on Wi-Fi adapter?
Could you conduct the test again, this time utilizing more modern example like dnstrace? It provides a limited console output, exclusively parsing DNS packets, and is unlikely to adversely affect network performance.
PerfTest, being an outdated example, is not recommended for current use. The post you’re referring to briefly explains how using multiple threads in its architecture might lead to reduced throughput. In essence, improper use of multiple threads can cause TCP packet reordering, which in turn can degrade bandwidth.
To see a modern multi-threaded approach in action, take a look at the queued_packet_filter C++ class in ProxiFyre project source code. This model uses one thread for packet reading, another for processing, and additional threads to inject the processed packets throughout the network stack, both upstream and downstream. Such a framework is conducive to developing robust filtering solutions, even for high-capacity 10 Gigabit networks. Worth noting that I’ve also used this C++ class in the WireSock VPN Client.
The official Wireguard client employs a UDP socket and relies on the TCP/IP stack for packet reassembly. In contrast, WireSock, prioritizing performance, directly retrieves packets from the NDIS layer, bypassing the TCP/IP stack. The current version of WireSock does not reassemble fragmented Wireguard packets, operating under the assumption that the MTU is appropriately chosen to prevent fragmentation. While this approach is optimal for performance, it can be confusing for users. Recognizing this, I plan to address and rectify this issue in WireSock when time allows.
Typically, these errors occur in the case of packet fragmentation. Could you please try reducing the MTU and also check if using virtual adapter mode (-lac) makes a difference?
I don’t think it’d be because the virtual adapter setting also uses the same MTU I’m assuming.
Yes, you are correct, but the MTU is enforced using different techniques in adapter and adapterless modes.
It’s generally advisable to adjust the MTU on both the client and the server. Remember, changing MTU settings is often a process of trial and error, and what’s optimal can vary depending on your specific network conditions.
Hello,
The most notable distinction between WireSock’s virtual adapter mode and its default mode is that the former requires Administrator privileges to configure the virtual network adapter, while the latter does not. Regarding the throughput differences you’ve observed, this is intriguing. In my tests using WireSock in default mode on a 10 Gbps network and iperf3, the speeds reached 5.34 Gbit/sec, compared to 3.66 Gbit/sec for downloads when using the official WireGuard client. Could the MTU settings in your configuration be influencing this? What is the MTU value you are using? Additionally, have you tried reducing the MTU to 1380 to see if it impacts performance?The precise cause of the issue is unclear, but by using the
-log-level allcommand line option, Wiresock can capture and log all traffic (including both unencrypted and encrypted data) traversing the tunnel into PCAP files. Examining these PCAP files could provide valuable insights into what might have gone wrong in this particular situation. It is recommended to analyze these files for a more detailed understanding of the issue.An IP address in the range of 169.254.xxx.xxx is known as an Automatic Private IP Address (APIPA). This is assigned to a computer or network device when it’s configured to obtain an IP address automatically, but the device is unable to find a DHCP server (a network server that automatically provides and assigns IP addresses, default gateways and other network parameters) to give it an address.
This often happens when a device fails to obtain an IP address from a DHCP server, either because the server is not available, or because there’s an issue with the network connection. The 169.254.xxx.xxx address allows the device to communicate with other network devices that have similarly self-assigned IP addresses, but it won’t be able to communicate outside its local subnet. This is often a temporary state, until the device can properly obtain an IP address from a DHCP server.
There appear to be two potential scenarios: firstly, your VPN might be inaccurately assigning private IP addresses from inappropriate Internet realms; secondly, WireSock could be facing challenges in setting up the virtual network interface with the correct address. To resolve this, ensure that you operate WireSockUI as an Administrator, since it requires these elevated privileges to successfully configure the virtual network interface.
