Self-hosted cloud controller sounds very interesting. Having just set-up a legacy UniFi PC based controller for a friend's start-up (using 3 old UniFi APs I had spare), I'd forgotten just how easy it was there. Sure, I love the power, and therefore complexity, of RouterOS, but a simplified CAPsMAN accessed via the web would work well. The architecture would have to work differently though. I assume that CAPsMAN controlled access points will stop working if CAPsMAN is not accessible? With UniFi, they carry on working if the controller goes offline.

Self-hosted cloud controller sounds very interesting. Having just set-up a legacy UniFi PC based controller for a friend's start-up (using 3 old UniFi APs I had spare), I'd forgotten just how easy it was there. Sure, I love the power, and therefore complexity, of RouterOS, but a simplified CAPsMAN accessed via the web would work well. The architecture would have to work differently though. I assume that CAPsMAN controlled access points will stop working if CAPsMAN is not accessible? With UniFi, they carry on working if the controller goes offline.

+1 !

wasted time to write to this topic...MDC is dead.

I assume that CAPsMAN controlled access points will stop working if CAPsMAN is not accessible?

Why don't you try it out?

. Having just set-up a legacy UniFi PC based controller for a friend's start-up (using 3 old UniFi APs I had spare), I'd forgotten just how easy it was there.

Yeah, "super easy". Just need a computer that runs the unifi network software which needs a ton of resources. Without this software or a cloud key you can't even configure your APs. And unifi Android app just gives you like 10% of configuration options of controller Software. and once you get the idea: setup with controller Software and then use the Android app for simple changes. yeah, that made the AP I provisioned to a dumb brick. all SSIDS changed to some random id and encryption EAP. so really broken as broken can get. TFTP to restore.

YMMV

I assume that CAPsMAN controlled access points will stop working if CAPsMAN is not accessible?

Why don't you try it out?

It depends.
If the interfaces are configured being under capsman control only, they will drop dead.
If they are configured as capsman-or-local, they will continue using local settings if capsman is inaccessible.

If they are configured as capsman-or-local, they will continue using local settings if capsman is inaccessible.

Thanks I'll check that out.

wasted time to write to this topic...MDC is dead.

The project may be dead @ Mikrotik but the topic isn't.

Yeah, "super easy". Just need a computer that runs the unifi network software which needs a ton of resources. Without this software or a cloud key you can't even configure your APs.

For smaller operations, the cloud controller is a quicker and therefore cheaper option that works fine. All I can say from personal experience is that my RouterOS/CAPs based clients seem to need a lot more attention that UniFi. I'm not sure what I'm trying to say here - I love RouterOS and want it to be super popular but can't deny it's far more complex. I'm hoping that once ROS 7 settles down, I won't be checking Mikrotik installs frequently. With UniFi, I sometimes don't check the controller for six months. Then all I might end up doing is updating the firmware on the access points. Which occur far less frequently than RouterOS. BTW my UniFi clients are usually just for the access points. The routers are Mikrotik. Once again, it's Wi-Fi that's the talking point.

There is a point here, just not sure I'm making it clearly.

All I can say from personal experience is that my RouterOS/CAPs based clients seem to need a lot more attention that UniFi. I'm not sure what I'm trying to say here - I love RouterOS and want it to be super popular but can't deny it's far more complex. I'm hoping that once ROS 7 settles down, I won't be checking Mikrotik installs frequently. With UniFi, I sometimes don't check the controller for six months. Then all I might end up doing is updating the firmware on the access points. Which occur far less frequently than RouterOS. BTW my UniFi clients are usually just for the access points. The routers are Mikrotik. Once again, it's Wi-Fi that's the talking point.

Not sure what you are aiming for.
I have 2 capsman installations. One at home. HUGE maintenance effort, obviously with all testing and beta/rc upgrades and tinkering and ... did I mention testing already ?

Second one is a warehouse setup with 15 APs (RB5009 and mix of cAP AX, AX3 and 1 AX Lite). Apart from upgrades I never touch that setup.
Never. Zero problems. The last time I changed something there was to add an SSID for a meeting room, somewhere in late november/ early december, I think.
I do check in that RB5009 from time to time (once every couple of weeks or so) to scan the logs but nothing comes up requiring intervention (log to USB disk, I can go a LOOONG way back).

About upgrades: I only do them for major stable releases, e.g. everything is on 7.13.3 now and will remain there until 7.14.x is later available.
I'm pretty careful with that setup before applying upgrades.

Certainly, that's how Murphy works, this will somewhere bite back at me now I wrote all of this ...

I guess I'm a bit tainted with one particular site that's had lots of Wi-Fi issues but it's a busy bar in a highly congested area. It exposed some of the weaknesses in ROS 6 Wi-Fi. I'm planning an upgrade to ROS 7 soon but difficult part is getting time. Bar is open 10am until midnight! And I don't do nights :-)

But it can't really be argued that setting up a UniFi cloud controller environment is far faster than anything CAPsMAN based. Even if you've got the set-up process scripted. For many people, that's all they want. I don't seem to worry about 5GHz channel selection and/or DFS. It just works out of the box.

So I guess what I'm saying is that Mikrotik would be more successful in the UK if the management interface had a simple mode. Whether Mikrotik want that market segment is up to them. But going back to that bar - owned by a friend. The site is by far the busiest but he set-up another much smaller bar himself with UniFi. Mikrotik didn't get a look in.

RouterOS could go up against Cisco ;-) Having been a one-time part-time manager of Cisco kit, I know that's not easy either. Not used any of the recent Meraki management systems though. I have a moral problem with Cisco - cost ;-) My Yorkshire roots. A client recently sold up to a larger business and they ripped out the perfectly functional Virgin Media cable modem and Draytek router. Worked flawlessly for years. Replaced with a Meraki. I checked the price - £750 plus £200/year for the license. Robbing barstools ;-) Complete overkill for 5 people in an office. I digress...

The decision to buy Cisco is normally not motivated by cost or easy of use.
You may be able to take market share from Ubiquiti, you will never be able to take considerable market share from Cisco.

The decision to buy Cisco is normally not motivated by cost or easy of use.
You may be able to take market share from Ubiquiti, you will never be able to take considerable market share from Cisco.

Agreed - sad but true. I wonder how much money is "wasted" with over priced kit that's really not justified. Could feed the world I suspect ;-)

I don't seem to worry about 5GHz channel selection and/or DFS. It just works out of the box.

Different experience here with a U6+. The channel selection on "auto" is aweful. It even chose the same channel 1 of the only other 2ghz AP around. Pretty dumb

I know we think the controller idea is dead but some further evidence that client's wants something different. Readers may recall the on-going problems at a very Wi-Fi congested site at a bar and Wi-Fi simply not working or the speed dropping dramatically. Not exactly a complex set-up: router and four cAP ac access points. I visited the site this week to carry out the ROS v7 upgrade mainly because it scared the life out of me! I wanted to be there in case I had to failback to earlier version. The recent problem is devices not been able to connect to the guest Wi-Fi which is on a separate VLAN with a queue on it. Reboot the cAP AC and it worked. Anyway that's an aside to this post...

The client said "Tempted to replace the cAP ac with Unifi access points like we've got elsewhere because they just work and I can logon to a website to reboot/update them if required".

So there are two things here - Wi-Fi stability and accessibility of management.

PS. I'm hoping that the ROS 7 upgrade will help along with the wifi-qcom package which I've yet to switch to. Won't get around accessibility. They know they can remote into a laptop there to access Winbox but I completely agree with them that this isn't anyway as easy as logging onto a web site, selecting devices and rebooting/updating them. Which is all that we should really be doing after a installation! Shouldn't be continually tweaking and problem solving.

I guess only Mikrotik know where they want their business and whether SOHO is a market segment that's important to them.

If all you want to do is reboot ... unplug the POE cable and put it back in. Done.

If all you want to do is reboot ... unplug the POE cable and put it back in. Done.

True but once again, for ease of use this doesn't compare to the business owner (who isn't on-site) logging onto a website from anywhere and rebooting. I find myself falling into the trap of what is easy for IT support, isn't for normal human beings :-)

There is no argument here = Unfi cloud controller is more friendly and accessible than Winbox for SOHO.

Don't get me wrong, I love RouterOS but I'm a nerd and sometime programmer. Any device that I can script gets thumbs up from me. But sometimes, you just want an easy life ;-)

From another post you just made:

I tackle this another way - I've got a couple of cheap IoT plug sockets. PC is configured in BIOS to power-up if the power fails. So I go in the app on my mobile, turn the socket off, wait a minute and turn it back on. I gave up on WOL years ago when it never seemed to work!

That might work too ?

Other option: VPN and webfig. You can scale down what is visible in webfig (never played with it myself).

Think in terms of solutions, not problems.

Indeed it might. Hadn't through about that! Easy implementation...

Be careful not to connect those plugs to the same wifi AP which needs to be reboot if wifi is down

Ahh good point ;-) Why have I just lost access to the plug?? Darn!!!

Just checking in... MDC still "cancelled" with no whisper of any viable replacement/work for Dude either (since it hasn't been touched since 6.42 and Mikrotik decided to actively not migrate the wiki content for it to the new help site)?
I'm so heavily invested in Mikrotik, but I feel like I (and likely many others) are being pushed out to ubiquity... and I feel dirty for even thinking about that.

I've started a project with intention to build a Wi-Fi network based on Mikrotik devices and ended up with UniFi solution.
It just works and do all required tasks in auto mode under the hood, but has its own limitations. But for non-technical people it is a very handy solution.

I would say it is better to think that Mikrotik is working hard and soon we will see the result of 2 years of work :)

It depends.
If the interfaces are configured being under capsman control only, they will drop dead.
If they are configured as capsman-or-local, they will continue using local settings if capsman is inaccessible.

Ohh that wasn't what I expected at all! Of course, if the CAPsMAN controller goes down, it's usually the main router, so you've got a bigger problem. But I expected them to carry on with their existing settings until the controller came back - which is what Unfi controller does. But in the later scenario, the controller is either on a local computer (which could easily disappear) or cloud based (ditto with internet connection failing).

But for non-technical people it is a very handy solution.

Exactly... which is why as I'm starting to retire, I'm not going to do anymore Mikrotik installs as it's far too tied to me personally re updates. If there was a cloud based solution, then I might carry on. I was thinking about this - most higher power Mikrotik routers could run a small web server going via a web proxy to get around port forwarding issues. Also do authentication in the cloud, not on the device. It's not like it's going to get a lot of traffic. Might even be a nominal charge but should be less than Unifi cloud license as Mikrotik isn't running the web service.

Somebody mentioned a 3rd party attempt at a cloud controller? How does that work? Sends commands to the local router via some method?

Just checking in... MDC still "cancelled" with no whisper of any viable replacement/work for Dude either (since it hasn't been touched since 6.42 and Mikrotik decided to actively not migrate the wiki content for it to the new help site)?
I'm so heavily invested in Mikrotik, but I feel like I (and likely many others) are being pushed out to ubiquity... and I feel dirty for even thinking about that.

damn right.
a controller like the UNMS/UISP system from ubiquiti would be awesome. it does not do much but it would cover BASIC stuff like monitoring, config backup, firmware management.....

Shouldn't that be the Dude? And where is it now...

Shouldn't that be the Dude? And where is it now...

Yes. He's happily living in a Ubuntu VM with i386 wine, running on Intel Mac.

Folks understandably bag on the Dude's UI. But the backend server (dude.npk) is the real power. No cloud or containers & ahead-of-its-time using SQLite as the backend store. Once setup in the 1990's-like dude.exe UI, the server on RouterOS does all the heavy-lifting of monitoring/alerts/logs/charting/etc. It's more feature rich than it looks (e.g. I don't use it, but you have actually have a hierarchy of Dude servers). Just dated, and overly complex, UI.

If they just put a small subset of the Dude in webfig/etc, that go a long way. Dude maps show up in webfig today, but you cannot really add a monitored device to it using webfig.

I am running dude instance for ages too. Started on rb2011 that days, but since then in virtualized environments. Showing traffic, grabbing logs, making environmental scans. I am very sad that its development was stopped, because if it was evolving together with ros side by side - that would be something.

Dude is still working and usefull. BUT check competition...did you see cntroller from ubiquiti or even TP-Link? This is how to should look controller from 21 century...

Dude is still working and usefull. BUT check competition...did you see cntroller from ubiquiti or even TP-Link? This is how to should look controller from 21 century...

Agreed.

More saying adding some modern HTML (instead a 32-bit app), on what was already working well (at least the "backend" dude.npk part) — that does would not have taken 2 years. UBNT cloud does actually do all that much, so if UI started with those features & used Dude as backend... we'd have already had a "controller".

Now some folks see "controller" as being a Wi-Fi or SDN traffic thing too. That need, The Dude cannot help.

Some simple HTML interface to manage router/APs is all that was/is missing in the Dude (some of Dude is already in webfig, so even there no starting from scratch). It's a clean-sheet design — as if there was not already working code — is how we ended up here... with nothing.