We would like to announce that the Firmware 8.1.0 RC 4 is now available.
Supported models:
X Series, Balance, MAX, UBR, SpeedFusion Engine, FusionHub, Surf SOHO
Changes since 8.1.0 RC 3:
Mostly Praise, but some Concern.
Praise: I’m loving 8.1 in general, seems stable and the new features are great. Bravo!
Concern:
Hello @Lai,
We have had several systems fail to upgrade from 8.1.0 RC2 to 8.1.0 RC4 via IC2, all were scheduled to upgrade overnight at 2 am Sydney time.
All have the same error. They were all previously upgraded through IC2 and none have had any changes that would block access to the download subdomain of Peplink.
We have also had a unit remotely upgraded via IC2 that has since then crashed, unable to recover
Of concern is what we see in the logs, why on earth would you install MediaFast and ContentHub firmware components on a BR1?
Happy to Help,
Marcus 
Hello @Lai,
We have looked into the Balance 380 as the customer was getting alarms from the system for several hours. The emails that are shown in this image align with the 20 attempts to update the firmware
What we have found is the firmware upgrade process is getting initiated from InControl2 and accepted by the Balance 380, the Balance 380 is then rebooting after receiving the firmware, though it is rebooting back to 8.0.1 RC2. This image is from the logs within InControl2 and some device details.
After looking through the logs of the FusionHub devices, we found all of these had the same thing happening as the Balance 380 above.
We have still been unable to resurrect this system.
Good news is we have successfully deployed to the following models.
| SKU | Description (Hardware Revision #) |
|---|---|
| BPL-310X-LTEA-K | Peplink Balance 310X (HR2) |
| BPL-ONE | Peplink Balance One (HR3) |
| BPL-SDX | Peplink Balance SDX (HR1) |
| BPL-TWO | Peplink Balance Two (HR1) |
| EPX-M8-LP5C1F1 | Peplink EPX (HR1) |
| MAX-BR1-ENT-LTEA-P | Pepwave MAX BR1 ENT LTEA (HR1) |
| MAX-BR1-LTE-E | Pepwave MAX BR1 (HR2) |
| MAX-BR1-MINI-LTE-US | Pepwave MAX BR1 Mini (HR1) |
| MAX-HD4-MBX-GLTE-G | Pepwave MAX HD4 MBX LTEA (HR4) |
| MAX-HD4-MBX-LTEA-K | Pepwave MAX HD4 MBX (HR4) |
| MAX-PDX-LTEA-K | Pepwave PDX (HR1) |
| MAX-TST-DUO-LTEA-P | Pepwave MAX Transit Duo LTEA (HR2) |
| MAX-TST-DUO-LTEA-R-T-PRM | Pepwave MAX Transit Duo LTEA (HR2) |
| SFE-CAM-VM-LTEA-P | Pepwave SpeedFusion Engine Cam (HR1) |
| SFE-DUO-LTEA-P-ET | Pepwave SpeedFusion Engine (HR2) |
| UBR-LTE-MX-T-PRM | Pepwave UBR LTE (HR1) |
| These all appear to be operating with OK stability at the moment. |
Happy to Help,
Marcus
Hello @Lai,
We may have located the issue for you for these two. When we look at the reboot menus of the Balance 380 and the FusionHub we see that both slots have the same version of the firmware.
Peplink Balance 380
Peplink FusionHub (on AWS EC2)
Now if you have a look at the firmware versions that IC2 is wanting to push out, you see the versions numbers differ.
Next, have a look at the version release numbers at the end of the available download links (fw-…-8.1.0-build####.bin)
So it appears that either the firmware package is coded with the wrong sequence number or that InControl2 has the wrong version numbers.
Some questions to be clarified:
Happy to Help,
Marcus
@mldowling I know BR1 Classic HW3 has contenthub now, my guess is some unification of the firmware is why you are seeing that.
I found the 50% performance problem - see Outbound Policy Rule using Domain Name cuts bandwidth in half
Could this get fixed for RC5 ?
IC2 showed wrong build number for the following model, and now has been fixed. As the firmware binary have no issue, therefore, if you upgraded the unit successful, then you would have correct 8.1.0 RC4 version.
Balance 1350
Balance 2500
Balance 305
Balance 380
Balance 580
Balance 710
MediaFast 500
MediaFast 750
FusionHub
Anyway, I am posting the direct links of these binary download link here.
Firmware 8.1.0 RC 4 build 4942 for Balance 305, 380 or above, MediaFast 500/750:
https://download.peplink.com/firmware/plb2500/fw-b305hw2_380hw6_580hw2_710hw3_1350hw2_2500-8.1.0-build4942.bin
Firmware 8.1.0 RC 4 build 4940 for FusionHub
https://download.peplink.com/firmware/fusionhub/fw-fusionhub-8.1.0-build4940.bin
Would you please PM me the S/N of the unit?
Minor issue on SOHO MK3 web interface in RC4. The reboot tab no longer identifies the version number for firmware 1. (Thought you’d want to know.)
Hello @Lai
So the systems that have had an issue, what do we need to do to clear the error within IC2:
As each of these systems rebooted twenty (20) times, what can we do to assist to mitigate this in the future?
Happy to Help,
Marcus
@Lai This is a fairly significant issue.
Please re-assign the firmware in IC2 for the units. And IC2 Team is investigating the cause of the issue in order to prevent it happens again.
Hello @Lai,
We have just seen a potentially new issue with Optus here in Australia, Optus SIMs have started showing up on a PDX as roaming, yet Optus has lots of local network coverage and capacity.
As seen within InControl2
As seen within the Remote Web Admin
Here is the interesting thing, “Data Roaming” option is disabled.
Within the PDX is also a SFE within an option bay (connected the the PDX WAN#1), this also has an Optus SIM and it appears to be operating normally.
We have captured a Diagnostic File and can orgnise Remote Access, PM for additional details.
Happy to Help,
Marcus
will this: QoS Individual Bandwidth Limit doesn't work - #31 by TK_Liew make it into the final 8.1? thanks!
Would you please open a support ticket for support team to check ?
This is still under testing firmware.
Hello @sitloongs,
Ticket # 20070825 has been created for the Optus roaming fault on the PDX with screenshots, diagnostic file and other device details.
Happy to Help,
Marcus
I wanted to mention something I noticed in case it is a bug. If it’s intended behavior that is great, I just wanted to check. I have 3 AP One AC Mini’s controlled by my Max Transit with the built in AP disabled. On the dashboard it used to list my active SSID’s where it now says “(No Wi-Fi AP)” in the screenshot below. Again, if this is intended you can disregard this message. I just wanted to mention it in case it’s a bug.
