EMULE

Yes, if you need help from the community, try to provide logs or screenshots of program malfunctions. Text descriptions alone make it difficult to pinpoint the problem. However, there's another reason: I simply didn't see it. Haha, there are plenty of posts on the community forum after all. 😄😄😄

Have you added a specific server to the allowed list in the server list? You can check the "Show All" box at the bottom of the Eddie server interface to see all servers.

Really? It's good news to know that it's not a server issue.😂 It seems the only option left is to try AmneziaWG 1.5. 😡Damn the GFW! The latest GFW has incorporated AI, greatly enhancing its ability to block VPN protocols. Fortunately, China is vigorously promoting IPv6, which allows me to catch my breath for now. The future depends on full support from the AmneziaWG protocol.🙌

This is a problem. Because it's dynamic. For example, today I can connect to all ports on server A, but only to a specific port on server B. Tomorrow, I might only be able to connect to the specific port on server A, while all ports on server B will be available. All servers behave this way; there's no guarantee that one will always be available and another will always be unavailable. Server hardware and software are fixed, and my network environment is also fixed. Only the server load is dynamic, which is why I suspect it's a problem of Wireguard resources being exhausted on the server. Perhaps OpenVPN is consuming too many resources. I think we can verify this on the two servers testing DCO by increasing the priority of WireGuard and seeing if all WireGuard ports are available.

I'm also confused. Perhaps the hardware isn't powerful enough? A 1Gbps server can handle 100+ users with 80% bandwidth utilization. This means a 10Gbps server would need 1000+ users to achieve the same 80% bandwidth utilization. However, in reality, a 10Gbps server experiences a significant speed drop when handling 300+ users, seemingly unable to keep up. It would be better to label it as a 3Gbps or 5Gbps server, as the actual speed difference from the advertised 10Gbps is substantial. If that's the case, it would be better to replace one 10Gbps server with ten 1Gbps servers. Maybe that's the case? I think AirVPN may have leased a 10Gbps network in the data center, but the servers can't handle that 10Gbps network. Isn't that a waste of resources? I think AirVPN can increase the number of 1Gbps servers as much as possible to make full use of network bandwidth, which would also save on server costs for AirVPN, wouldn't it?

Really? So how can this be resolved? Change the connection protocol? But it's still the same when I use AmneziaWG 1.0. Can QUIC simulation in AmneziaWG 1.5 solve this problem? My ISP did not block the corresponding UDP ports. Some servers have all ports unavailable via Wireguard, some can only use one specific port, and some can connect to all three ports. What a perplexing question! Wireguard is not as available on all servers as OpenVPN, which causes some trouble for users who use Wireguard to connect. Did WireGuard require strict network conditions from the outset? I always feel that WireGuard's compatibility is not as good as OpenVPN's. Is it that network compatibility is sacrificed for high performance? In any case, allocating more resources to Wireguard is reasonable, as Wireguard's high performance will be appreciated by more people. Of course, OpenVPN is also indispensable, as there will always be some people who need to bypass strict network restrictions. Is DCO an effective solution for optimizing both? I'm really looking forward to it. So, what stage is DCO testing at? Is DCO 2.6.14 still unstable? OpenVPN 2.7 series has already removed support for WinTun, so I believe the OpenVPN team is full of confidence in DCO for the 2.7 series. I'm really looking forward to seeing the DCO effect in the official 2.7 series.

For the sake of so-called security, Windows' system permission design can sometimes be quite annoying. When I installed Windows, I configured Huorong Security Software with the highest privileges, locking the core Windows processes from being tampered with. For any operations requiring high privileges, I use Huorong Security Software's toolbox, which can solve the problem with a single click, saving me a lot of trouble.

Hi Archaon1, I'm glad I could help you. Six months ago, I was just a newbie, but thanks to the community's help, I grew rapidly. Now, I can finally help others too. That's the meaning of a community. Haha, it's really satisfying to help others. 🎉🎉🎉

Did everyone notice? The Kornephoros server achieved astonishing speeds today. As a 10Gbps server, it loaded over 5Gbps of bandwidth. I've never seen such speeds on any 10Gbps server before. What makes this server different from other 10Gbps servers? Is it the unprecedentedly powerful hardware, the data center's network environment, or AirVPN's optimization of the server's kernel? Staff can take a look and use this information to optimize other 10Gbps servers. Kornephoros is truly unexpected.

+1

+1 I also love AirVPN.

Yes, I'm using AmneziaWG to connect, and on many servers, all WireGuard ports are either unavailable or only one port is available. However, OpenVPN can connect using all protocols. I suspect OpenVPN is consuming too many resources, leaving the servers with no resources available for WireGuard connections. Allocating more server resources to WireGuard might be the solution to the WireGuard connectivity problem.

If possible, after deleting the files, perform a network reset (Windows Settings - Network & Internet - Advanced network settings - Network reset). This operation will remove all hidden WireGuard network adapters. After restarting your computer, run Eddie to cleanly install the WireGuard driver and its network adapter.

You need to delete the Wireguard folder and files in your image. Let Eddie recreate it for you.

These files are all related to the Wireguard driver. A normal file should look like this, see my image (please replace wintun with wireguard, because I am using AmneziaWG). The order of your files is different; they have likely been changed (possibly by other software or a Windows driver update). Try deleting and recreating them.

This is a driver issue; I've encountered this problem before. Windows may have remnants of an older version of the Wireguard service (the driver has been modified by other software). You can try deleting the wireguard.sys driver (check in Device Manager for a network adapter named "Wireguard Tunnel," right-click to uninstall the device, and check the box to delete its driver), then restart your computer and run Wireguard again to see if you can connect. If the network adapter cannot be found in Device Manager, delete wireguard.sys in the directory C:\Windows\System32\drivers, and delete the folders containing "wireguard" in the directory C:\Windows\System32\DriverStore\FileRepository. Then restart your computer and run the Eddie or Wireguard client again to connect. (Deleting the drivers in this directory requires system privileges or can be done in a PE system. Do not delete other files, otherwise it will cause system errors.) Hope this helps.

Yes, the addition of the AmneziaWG protocol can solve the connection problems for most people at present, and I hope that AmneziaWG can be used for a long time. If in the future, when the existing protocol can no longer connect, I believe that AirVPN will add a new protocol to solve the connection problem. I will always believe in your technology and capabilities, and I believe that you will always let us breathe real internet. I will always love you, AirVPN. Keep it up!😘😘😘

With the AmneziaWG protocol, the obfuscation capability at the UDP layer is greatly improved, but what about at the TCP layer? Other countries may completely block the UDP protocol, making it impossible for AmneziaWG to connect. In that case, they can only connect via the TCP protocol. Currently, AirVPN only has early obfuscation solutions such as SSH and SSL for TCP obfuscation. In China's IPv4 environment, SSH and SSL are fully recognized, rate-limited, and blocked. This means that AirVPN's TCP-level obfuscation performance is relatively poor. I think the next step for AirVPN could be to focus on TCP obfuscation. X-ray, Shadowsocks, and V2Ray are all protocols with high levels of obfuscation. You could choose one of these protocols to make an outer proxy for OpenVPN TCP to enhance the obfuscation capabilities at the TCP layer. I know that AirVPN's strongest shield against TCP is the pluggable bridges developed by the Tor team. However, Tor is blocked in China at a much higher level than SSH and SSL (because the dark web is hidden within the Tor network). The newly developed WebTunnel is unlikely to survive more than three months in China. Blocking Tor isn't about identifying the bridge protocol; it's about blocking Tor-related domains, node IPs, and bridge IPs, making Tor unusable in China. AirVPN might be able to utilize the obfuscated bridge protocols developed by the Tor team without using Tor nodes, using bridge protocols like WebTunnel as an outer proxy for OpenVPN TCP, directly connecting to the AirVPN server network. AirVPN may still rely on Tor for TCP protocol obfuscation in the short term, which is understandable, given that adding a new protocol to all servers would require a significant amount of time and resources. The addition of the AmneziaWG protocol is sufficient for my needs; thank you, AirVPN. However, with increasing global internet censorship and the emergence of new obfuscation protocols, switching to more modern obfuscation protocols is definitely the future trend for VPN vendors, because there will always be people in the dark side of the internet. These are all my personal opinions, thanks.

Waiting for AmneziaWG to be added to various platform versions of Eddie.

These are the AmneziaWG parameters I use in China. This set of parameters can reliably bypass the GFW. Staff can take a look. Jc = 20; Jmin = 50; Jmax = 1000; S1 = 0; S2 = 0; H1 = 3; H2 = 1; H3 = 4; H4 = 2;

Great! Eddie finally supports AmneziaWG, and UDP finally has a masquerade protocol. Another protocol has been added to the list of protocols for bypassing China's Great Firewall.

This is merely my observation. I don't understand the code. I feel that DCO should be compatible with Tap and Tun. Could this be due to some directives in the OVPN configuration file being incompatible with DCO? I learned about the dual-side acceleration for both servers and clients from the update notes of the ovpn-dco-win 2.x series. The 2.x series explicitly added a DCO server mode, while the 1.x series defaulted to client mode. Since two modes have been introduced, dual-side acceleration must have been implemented. The OpenVPN 2.7 series on Windows uses the ovpn-dco-win 2.x series driver, while the previous 2.6 series used the 1.x series driver. Comparing 1.0.0...2.4.0 · OpenVPN/ovpn-dco-win · GitHub

I think the DCO driver support in the OpenVPN 2.6 series is incomplete. The 2.6 series DCO server can serve non-DCO clients, but non-DCO servers cannot serve DCO clients. This is the result of my multiple attempts, after all, I am not a professional.

I believe AirVPN is awaiting the official release of the OpenVPN 2.7 series. The OpenVPN 2.7 series DCO adds dual-side acceleration for both the server and client, while the 2.6 series DCO only supports single-side acceleration for either the server or client. Furthermore, OpenVPN removed support for Wintun in the 2.7 series; future OpenVPN 2.7 series servers will only use the DCO driver. Let's wait patiently for a few more months.

I have many servers on my eddie that I can't test for latency, but I can connect to these servers using the OpenVPN protocol. What could be the problem?