SoftEther VPN User Forum

I am new to VPN technology, but wanted to share since there have been no replies.

It doesn't seem like you need to use SecureNAT because you have physical access to the server and admin rights to the server I am assuming.

I found this on the Softether site.

Precautions relating to Performance
By possessing an internal virtual TCP/IP stack, SecureNAT performs the highly advanced process of reassembling the TCP/IP stream packetized once by the TCP/IP stack and further TCP/IP packetizing via the operating system. The overhead resulting from these processes is large, such that throughput via the virtual NAT is considerably decreased when compared to physical maximum throughput, even when using a computer with sufficiently high speed. That is why virtual NAT should not be used for performance-centric applications. As previously stated, virtual NAT is a function which can be used as an alternative when the local bridge function cannot be used for security or technical reasons. Where high-speed methods such as local bridging are available, those methods should be used.

Got it from section 3.7.4
https://www.softether.org/index.php?tit ... CP_Servers

If you have time read that page. It mentions "Therefore, it is possible to make use of SecureNAT's virtual NAT function when preferring not to use the local bridging function, or unable to use it due to not possessing the computer's System Administrator authority or due to use of a UNIX OS version of the VPN Server or VPN Bridge other than Windows, Linux or Solaris."

I have same issue and I don't use secureNAT...
I have 2 LANs linked with virtual hubs and router exactly as described in softether tutorial.
it's sad that I should use TeamViewer for uploading to get adequate speed :(

Update: sorry, I was wrong, when I tried TeamViewer I got same 120kbytes/sec speed, maybe it's ISP problem...

I've got the same exact issue. I've tested all kinds of combinations, including setting up my tests wholly within my network (both server and bridge within my gigabit network). I've got 100 mbps down and 25 mbps up from my ISP. But, after tweaking and experimenting for months the most I've gotten through Softether down is 1 mbps (peaked for a moment - normally runs at 300 kbps). But up I get 6mbps up consistently.

I've added gigabit NIC's to both the server and bridge so there are 2 NIC's involved.

I've tweaked the broadcast filters, concurrent ip connections, encryption, compression and everything else I've found mentioned in the oh-so-poor documentation.

I've gone so far as to reverse the roles of the server (thinking maybe there was a bug in the down side), and have gotten similar performance.

So I'm just baffled. I watch the server, and when downloading it is just sitting idle, barely pumping anything through. But do an upload and the server jumps to life - hitting about 60% cpu usage and moving 6 mbps.

At the same moment that the softether server is barely moving 200 kbps down, I can pull 40 mbps down on a separate machine that is bypassing the softether and going to the router directly (40 mpbs through a WIFI connection, so it is probably twice that if I were testing on a wired connection).

I've posted my problems on this forum for weeks and have received no contact back, so at this point I'm now experimenting with OpenVPN to see if it will fix the problem.

How to measure the network throughput?
What protocol do you use?

And, please show ping result.
Some protocol can't get good throughput in high latency network or high packet loss environment.