Improve DDNS client stability when using PPPoE for WAN.
Resolve issues when using source MACs in filter/NAT rules.
L2TP: Require MSCHAPv2 for authentication for improved client compatibility.
Improve L2TP server reliability.
This update is being rolled out now. You can manually initiate the upgrade if you’d like, or it will automatically update overnight (if auto-updates are enabled). The complete, up-to-date changelog is available here:
As always, if you have questions or encounter any issues, feel free to reply here or start a new topic. Please include details about the issue so we can assist you effectively.
Support is technically closed tomorrow. Just checking hours? If you have a specific query or concern, please do reach out via DM and I’d be happy to discuss further.
I question the wisdom of 2 firmware releases late in the day before a 3 day weekend when no support will be available. I’m off to ensure auto-updates are properly disabled now.
Have to agree, it’s been many months since the last update.
Releasing the first update in 3 months (almost to the day), before a long weekend that doesn’t disclose patching a high severity security vulnerability is not a great plan.
Noting the switch firmware update last week that needed to be rolled back lessons learned should have considered when to release non urgent (i.e. no security vulnerabilities, or P1 level bugs)
This update very much could have waited for Monday to roll around!
We had the following six releases all only a few days to a week apart during March early April then nothing till this one…
1.3z
1.4b
1.4c
1.4d
1.4e
1.4f
Having said that, great to see updates starting again, and a large one at that. Now lets hope we can get back to a more regular update cadence instead waiting for a full 3 months.
Well, the good news I have to report is that the update went well on the sites I applied it to. All the sites are using the cloud controller with no issues updating and the new features look to be working and performing exactly as intended, so kudos!
That being said, I’m really bummed to hear about what happened to @Beaker’s setup. I hope something can be done to resolve that and make it up to him in some way. And to @mentalinc’s point, as happy as I am to see this update it probably also could have waited until Monday!
I really do hope the team takes a moment to review their update release policies and considers implimenting some additional controls for how and when updates are applied (I probably sound like a broken record at this point after putting together this feature request about it too! Additional Update Options).
The more I suffer as a result of poor execution and lackluster QA (for those operating on the local management side) the clearer I see where their focus of attention is on, and that is cloud management.
There is nothing wrong with supporting and prioritizing one over the other, but if cloud is the priority, at least inform us and let us make that decision whether we want to continue with the local control, resort to cloud based management, or another vendor.
It’s available on the cloud controller. However, it appears that only v4 routes are currently supported. This is somewhat disappointing, considering how long we have been waiting for such a basic feature.
Who writes the release notes? I’ve seen this requested multiple times in the past, put just a little effort in the release notes.
Instead of 5 whole words for a new feature like “Add support for static routing”, why not write something that is actually useful. For example:
Added support for static routing, currently only supporting IPv4. Static routes can be found under Settings → Network → Routes. Currently only available on the cloud controller, local controller support will be added with version 1.1e.
This describes the new feature, provides info on what level it is supported, where to find the configuration and where it is currently not available. It answers several questions proactively and literally couldn’t take more than a few extra minutes to develop.
I do not understand why the concept of decent release notes is so difficult, considering that you don’t plan to provide real documentation at the time of release, as documented in the trust article - try to provide something in 30 days.
Added support for static routing, currently only supporting IPv4. Static routes can be found under Settings → Network → Routes. Currently only available on the cloud controller, local controller support will be added with version 1.1e.
I think that’s a really solid example of a release note that gives a quick summary of what feature was added, where it’s at, and what lmitations it might have at the moment. I’d maybe even pitch prepending what feature it’s related before the note, something like [Routing], just to help categorize it further!
We’re getting off topic (haha), but I always thought it would be neat to @ a forum user in the release notes if a bug was fixed that they reported or a feature added that was requested. I’ve seen that before in a forum or two and it seems like a good way of keeping people engaged and participating in the community.
Also, even though sticky dual wan issue was apparently addressed, I still have the same issue on 1.4g, devices sticking to WAN2 even after WAN1 restores. The user interface could really benefit from a sticky connections toggle - for those who want their router to failback to WAN1 as soon as its available (Like the UCG Fibre does)
My Route 10 running this update just disppeared up its own backside this evening, stopped handing out dhcp addresses, stopped routing inter vlan traffic, WAN went offline, couldnt even SSH onto it and ping was returning 200+ms responses, had to physically power cycle it to restore service.
Had hoped the update we were promised at the end of Q1, coming out at the start of Q3 might be a bit more stable, based on other posts in the forum, I guess not.
Improve multi-WAN failover, particularly for previously-existing connections.
No one really knows what this actually is. Back to my crusade to have decent release notes. What does “particularly for previously-existing connections” actually mean?
The solution to the WAN not returning to the primary when failover occurs and the primary WAN connection is restored has been handed to the Alta Labs team on a silver platter, now whether they actually used it or this is something else completely, I guess we’ll never know.
