Firmware 8.0.0 is now RC2


We are pleased to announce that Firmware 8 is now in RC2.

Supported models:
EPX, Balance, MAX, SpeedFusion Engine, FusionHub, Surf SOHO

Here are the release notes.

Head over to and get yours now!

1 Like
pinned globally #2


I just heard back on my ticket that engineering will be adding "Lowest Latency” and “Least Used” options to the Outbound policy drop down on Pepwave MAX BR1 devices aka MK2. The device already supports Lowest Latency because the tool tip for the “auto” option says “When Auto is chosen, lowest latency algorithm will be applied.” Sounds like it will be added in RC3.

Thank you!


What are the changes between RC1 and RC2 ?


Is bufferbloat management gonna be included or remain experimental in the final release?


Just upgraded to RC2 on my Balance One, and I can confirm that the bufferbloat mitigation is working as in the earlier betas: I’m getting full download speed again, along with A+ bufferbloat scores.


Upgrading from 7.1 to 8.0 RC2. I did (4) Balance One, and (1) B380. In all five cases the setting for SIP pass thru reset itself from Standard Mode to Compatibility Mode. Sounds like a bug.

1 Like

@Don_Ferrario, this is strange. We tested upgrading from 7.1.0, 7.1.1, 7,1,2 to 8.0.0 RC2 without issue. Can help to open ticket for us to take a closer look?

@zegor_mjol, can I confirm this only happens to the FusionHub Solo which installed in Do you have another FusionHub Solo that installed in another platform?

1 Like

It is possibly more complicated (or there are other, completely independent factors). I ran the basic experiment:

  1. Created new instance
  2. Installed the 6.2.2 build 1370 distribution (the “raw” image)
  3. Upgraded to 7.1.1 build 1538 via IC2 (device details page). Success.
  4. Upgraded to 8.0.0 build 1586 via IC2 (device details page). Success.

So unless I run into this again then I think it fair to disregard the previous alarm.


1 Like

I have some questions about the PEPVPN compatibility text in the release notes.
The release notes says
PepVPN backward compatibility option is no longer available. By deprecating the old
firmware versions, we now have a more secure handshake channel as the default setting, only
TLS 1.2 will be accepted, no more TLS 1.0 and 1.1 for the old devices. Thus, if you are using
devices running Firmware 6.1 or older, you will no longer be able to form PepVPN tunnels with
those devices unless the firmware is updated
We have a few: Pepwave MAX On-The-Go HW1 devices that are running
Firmware: 6.3.5 build 2763
PepVPN Version: 5.0.0

The compatibility section says:

Will the Pepwave MAX On-The-Go HW1 with 6.3.5 build 2763 still be able to be compatible by moving the radio to the Latest selection, or will it need a new update?


No worry, the answer is Yes.

1 Like

Is anyone else’s CPU pinned to 100% since loading RC2? Thanks


Can anyone please help explain the WiFi as WAN roaming options introduced in 8.0? I believe they were previously known as CarFi Advanced Roaming.

I have two networks saved in the connection list. Currently connected to one network that is -75 to -80 signal. There is another available network in the saved connection list that I actually have saved as the higher priority. It has a -50 signal which is substantially better. I am confused why it is not automatically switching to this network with the better signal? Also, interesting enough, the presently connected network at one point was failing health check probably due to a bad signal and it was not switching over to the other saved SSID.

Can someone please elaborate on what these settings mean and what they are supposed to do? It seems to me that they are not doing anything. Thank you


@mystery, may I know the connected AP and the AP to be roamed are running the same channel?

1 Like

@TK_Liew they are not on the same channel.


Are there any plans to implement a feature allowing IP blocking by continent/country in v8.0? I saw something in the release notes that mentioned the “Grouped Network” feature for firewall rules, which sounds like a step in the right direction, however I don’t see anything in the release notes that mentions country blocking specifically, so I’m assuming in its current form, I would have to manually create and maintain the network groups if I used this feature for geo IP blocking.

This is becoming a must have feature for us. I emailed support about it and they directed me to the forum and the v8.0 beta and said “we are working on this” but gave me no details about a release date or anything else.


Hi Brandon, looks like the “Grouped Network” feature will allow users to define their own grouping to be used for firewall rules and outbound policy rules. Thanks

1 Like

@mystery, please ensure the APs are using same channel. This allows the Max device actively scan for the next available AP for roaming purpose.

1 Like

@TK_Liew I don’t think its feasible to ensure the APs are on the same channel. I will give two examples:

  1. for two totally different WiFi networks (different SSIDs) you would NOT want them on the same channel because of possible interference
  2. I use a city-wide/regional WiFi network and even though that is the same network (same SSID) the APs are on varying channels due to localized interference in certain areas (i.e they have been adjusted / optimized for their specific install location due to other non-associated networks using the channel they would normally use)

so it sounds like CarFi now known as Advanced Roaming will only work for the same network/SSID with all APs operating on the same channel and all the signal threshold settings, roaming, etc, will not work for my examples above?

what is the expected result if I am actively moving or drive from point a to point b where there are different networks (different SSIDs) or even same network (same SSID but APs on varying channels) and signal is low/weak? or not available? is there any way for the unit to automatically connect to a better signal SSID (different network) or AP (same network/SSID but AP is not on the same channel)? and is there any way for the unit to connect to a different SSID or AP within the same SSID in the event of no signal if the networks/APs are not on the same channel?

is there a reason it was programmed to only work on the same channel? i dont think that other devices i have tested ever cared about the channel…

i am just trying to figure out how this works…and how to best maintain connectivity… thank you!

edit: I just tested another manufacturer’s WiFi as WAN implementation. its pretty straight forward: i can set a signal level threshold, if breached it will look for another AP with the same SSID and if there is no AP with the same SSID that has a signal in tolerance/range it switches to a different SSID that has signal in tolerance/range, from my connection list where SSIDs can be ordered by priority. SSIDs/APs can be on different channels too. i would think the peplink should behave the same way? maybe a quick fix is to add a signal level threshold (kind of like what is available for the cellular signal on the details page) where one can type in a signal level and the peplink device will behave as i just described the other device behaves and the advanced roaming can be left as an option to someone that wants to setup a city-wide network with all APs on same SSID and channel?

1 Like


I could see the “Grouped Network” feature in the release notes and how it can be used, my question really pertains to whether Peplink is going to have the ability in the UI for me to select, for example, a country or a continent for IP blocking and have the ability for the IP ranges assigned to that country or continent stay up to date. In addition, I wasn’t sure what the limit of the size was for a grouped network, because obviously a network group that represented, for example, China, would be very large and I don’t know if it would be too large for my Balance 380 to process in a reasonable amount of time.

I was really wondering if Peplink was planning on implementing a full blown geo IP filtering feature like many other router/firewall manufacturers have implemented.

1 Like