C5 need more control and actually very disappointed


#1

My first impression after 1 day working with a5-18 and c5
c5 needs more control and I am really very disappointed. I test all the options that are in the menus and back I’m back in the stone age of 10 years ago.
Even basic routers, Linksys, tp-link, etc … they have more functionality in various fields, such as routing mode, which does not require sale (included in price) routers our customers. pppoe option is not even included yet, control over frequency with the option to have 10 MHz, 30 MHz, 50 MHz. Ubiquiti has over 200 option only in advanced network mode. vlan is not even included.
You understand that with an environment of more than 5,000 customers as my network, I need more control than what you offer me. Currently the firmware you offered me the client side is almost good has to inter-buildings.
They say that your product, when compared to Windows; we sell you a windows 98 and now we have reached has 10 windows.
10 years ago I had firmware as minimum as you offer me.
After more than 1 year of waiting for your products, I believe that your products are 75% completed.
I do not understand how you can win competitions “Best Wireless 2015” has several times with this type of product.
I do not put your product in the trash but for one day worked on it and after a wait of one year I was expecting much, much more than ca. I even delayed some relay waiting for your product, after the various awards that you have won.

I do not know if you know the anecdote that a computer product only lasts 3 to 6 months and then the product is already outdated and obsolete, so has the amount of firmware you go out to fix your bug and adding various feature I notice your product will be exceeded in six months because another company already has built a similar or more advanced.

I’ll even work some day in a real environment with your product but now I’m going to be reconsidered continue UBIQUITI bought for some project that I had booked your brand.

if a technician or a representative will contact me to give me your beta versions of firmware I would be willing to test them for you. In this case you can contact me by e-mail because I am a person who speaks French before English.


#2

I can’t say anything because I haven’t seen or used the product but this does not make for good reading, I think Mimosa needs to respond to this post to give some of us the confident that we have made the right decision.


#3

I agree with Michael’s assessment of needing more routing options on the client. It’s difficult for me to think about how I can use a c5 with a client. My current system allows me to have all my controls at the cpe.
B5’s I have been using are ok for now, they are just feeding routers at pops, so bridging is not a problem at this time.


#4

@Michel thanks, and understand your feedback well. I’ll try to discuss our overall approach from a networking perspective, as there is a bit more method to this than it may appear.

Fundamentally with the speeds that we’re now achieving, and quickly moving to 1 Gbps subscriber speeds in 2017, to achieve line-speed L3 and above networking features, the chip architectures have moved towards needing companion processing to efficiently perform the networking features you’re talking about.

The tradeoff here was to either:

(a) add additional processing at significant cost outdoors, which of course will be in duplication to a Ethernet connected router in the home for Wi-Fi and home networking, or
(b) add a number of features to handle much of the controls you need within the A5 Access Point and through more advanced provisioning features.

We’ve seen important advantages of adding subscriber and application traffic intelligence directly in the A5, which was designed for this task with a Gigabit+ Network Processor, so that we’re able to individually manage subscriber impact to Airtime and QoS, giving significantly better control and network/air health versus tunneled PPP which eliminates critical visibility at that central AP point, or a simple routing client.

With this tradeoff in mind, we chose to keep the C5 as a cost effective managed bridge, and extend a large number of features into the A5 to support a high quality Layer 1/2 network, as well as to automate provisioning of in-home routing (provided by the WISP OR managing 3rd party routers cleanly).

So for example, as of 2.0.2 coming in the next week, in addition to client isolation, multicast/broadcast and unicast flood prevention, we’ve also added DHCP rogue server prevention into the A5. So this will prevent ill-connected routers from impacting upstream and the wireless network.

Furthermore for VLAN settings, we are adding those into the A5 for applying VLAN settings. Obviously all of this was not completed in the first release obviously.

I assure you this is not due to lack of effort, for example we implemented some very sophisticated router functions as you may have seen with the new Mimosa G2 announced recently. But simply putting routing features into the outdoor CPE for edge control was going to be a cost addition that still required cost in-home, and also was not going to give us the degree of control we want to manage airtime quality at the A5 network layer.

Regarding the L3 termination (since the C5 will remain as a bridge), if you prefer NOT to add a router of your own (MikroTik, Linksys or Mimosa G2, etc.) for cost reasons, the best solution is to control the customer 3rd party router which typically is unknown MAC address, etc. which can be a bit of a pain of course to setup static IP and manage in scale. To make this seamless to manage, we are adding Option 82 on the A5 to protect the network DHCP server, and properly serve the correct subscriber IP address to the customer router by injecting the known MAC of the C5 into the DHCP relay request.

This of course assumes the C5 MAC/customer relationship has been associated and information available in the DHCP server tables or via Radius (Radius is the typical Option 82 lookup solution with DHCP servers). We have a lot of customers waiting on both Option 82 and Radius direct implementations in the A5 that we are adding support for.

We understand that some WISPs will not prefer this approach as a controlled L3 termination made their lives easiest. Also comparing it purely to a retail Ethernet/Wi-Fi router is also not really a good comparison as it’s not part of a comprehensive wireless ecosystem concerned with balancing the health of the subscribers across the AP. I assure you the technique we’re taking on system integrating the subscriber provisioning into the A5 and end-to-end airtime optimization approach is feedback we’ve received from the larger scaling ISPs as their more advanced preference driving to these much higher speeds.

For some things, like flexible channel size/bandwidths, we have more limited control in this generation of technology due to the chip, those are certainly things we’re pushing to improve in the next generation chip as we get opportunities to add features into this new line of chip technology.

Hope this helps explain our approach, it actually is quite a bit more advanced in the kinds of subscriber and traffic controls we can offer long term. Obviously we’re not entirely there yet with each piece of functionality so the early days are more manual and challenging for sure, but we’re very committed to continually adding features to make this very easy to deploy and make it well-tied in with larger scaling ISP operations and practices.


#5

From experience in the wireless for 10 years …
the problem to full features on the access point this access point overload
in the first equipment I purchased wireless all companies that made this solution “management point access through traffic” was killing the device and was heated up to a slowing of the unit and also a breach of a overheat. So we all recognized companies apply the solution that traffic should be managed by the customer’s CPE and leaving time to the access point to do this job is to do a good job without no wireless router.

Also, this technique to be in bridge mode was so caused technical problem and technical support to subscribers that I abandoned all such solutions; customer badly plugged the router, there were several dhcp in my network who already had a dhcp. customers who called to tell me he saw computers neighbor, so loss of confidence about security and viruses. Etc.

the router option is a 97% of my clients and the option of bridges is only 3% for those who want a public ip and pays for, but also for companies that pay for technical support 1st orders and all the features they want. this probably is more than 95% of the wisp I know

in my area that is Quebec, canada, all ADSL customers, fiber, cable uses the mode router with their modem router with the exception of commercial accounts that are bridge.

And if the large providers such as Bell, Cogeco, videotron, Telus, Rogers also use this technology it probably also have a big advantage.

At the beginning of your solution you tell us that we would be entitled to 250 clients per access point you are now made 100 customers, this is probably due to overheating of your AD.
Ubiquiti has over 200 customers ap in forums I see in router mode (I did not reach my suite has geography). Motorola is limited to 125 customers ap also partly a speed management technique by the AP.

you say:
“This of course assumes the C5 MAC/customer relationship has been associated and information available in the DHCP server tables or via Radius (Radius is the typical Option 82 lookup solution with DHCP servers). We have a lot of customers waiting on both Option 82 and Radius direct implementations in the A5 that we are adding support for.”

My answer is that you will likely crash you because you still add your router functionality has ap which will remove the speed of your ap which like I said you can have the router function that the CPE … it makes you one … there is nothing why not swing, the work of each device in the network.

You mean radius ap … each have a radius server !!! and if I have 50 AD and 1000 clients in the network how it will work! … You will provide me with a radius server to you and then you charge me this service is $ 1 / month per customer as you do with b5 to the Cloud management !!!

you say:
“We understand that some WISPs will not prefer this approach as a controlled L3 termination made their lives easiest. Also comparing it purely to a retail Ethernet/Wi-Fi router is also not really a good comparison as it’s not part of a comprehensive wireless ecosystem concerned with balancing the health of the subscribers across the AP. I assure you the technique we’re taking on system integrating the subscriber provisioning into the A5 and end-to-end airtime optimization approach is feedback we’ve received from the larger scaling ISPs as their more advanced preference driving to these much higher speeds.”

I understand that some provider want to work like you do right now in switch mode, but it’s like a spaghetti recipe, it’s paw, the spaghetti sauce, but if I like putting cheese for au gratin well I’ll put cheese on it to make it better for my taste. If you do not offer the router function, you will lose wisp because the feature is not there.

you say:
"you prefer NOT to add a router of your own (MikroTik, Linksys or Mimosa G2, etc.) for cost reasons,
this is not for cost reasons… this is because i don’t need the client look all my internal infrastructure, and i explained the problem of switching client before

sorry for the translation of google but I think it represents good translation


#6

@michel I think you’ve made my point about most of these issues being 10 year old issues. I’ve been in the networking industry for 20+ years, my last company was nothing but DSL and fiber home wireless gateways, where the industry migrated from routed/PPPoE networks to L2 networks exclusively with the largest ISPs, and we know the pitfalls you suggest and how to solve them.

We added completely separate, but coordinated GIgabit+ hardware accelerated network processing in addition to the wireless chip in each A5. As I mentioned above, we’ve locked down the L2 network with hardware accelerated processing, eliminating client-client communication and preventing impact of miswired/backwards home routers, as well as traffic flood prevention and internal DHCP server protection, etc… So as long as proper VLANs are setup, it’s an extremely clean architecture with very lightweight functions in the AP preventing clients from doing bad things to the network.

I ask that you keep in mind you’re getting your information about Mimosa directly from the source, and we’re happy to communicate with you, as opposed to random or incorrect information on a forum, so I propose that speculation is avoided if it’s not based on facts about our products, and I also appreciate there is a bit of a language barrier with Google translate.

There is absolutely no concern for “overheating”, you’re making these statements based on possible experience with other people’s products 10 years ago, and I would like to avoid false associations in this regard. Simply put, processor/CPU can be just as impacted by 10 clients that are unhealthy as it can be by 250 clients - and there are no thermal issues at top utilization, nor are the functions used to address L2 networking concerns performed in the same chip as the wireless MAC layer.

This is also why sophisticated air-time management in the AP, coordinated with subscriber rate information is critical, so that we can handle abusing/unhealthy clients impact to the airtime. We’ve seen the impacts of this enabled/disabled in real-life already where only the client makes decisions about peak/sustained rates without regard to the AP health status. It makes a huge difference to a healthy network. It’s more “LTE like” in this regard.

Regarding # of clients supported, it’s quite simple, we actually could modify our product to support 256 clients with a bit more software work that is complex, but possible, however there simply wasn’t any mainstream market demand. Furthermore, as client count increased to levels above 100, the latency introduced was so high because upstream direction traffic is still Single User MIMO technology. Not a CPU or heat issue at all. So even with more advanced higher capacity MU-MIMO, we didn’t believe it to be useful to introduce or market much larger client count due to latency, and latency alone, especially when the majority of deployments on APs fielded on competitive equipment rarely goes beyond 30-50 clients.

I understand your frustrations, it’s a totally different approach, and we’ve gone to great lengths based on professional experience and other WISP customer features asking us to prevent the situations you’re concerned about (such as rogue home routers and visibility of the network), and I hope that you can recognize this. I will continue to be as transparent as I can about what we are doing and can do. I can tell you though that this accomplishes the networking technical needs, at a lower cost by doing this in the AP that was designed specifically to do this and without overloading it, than adding more cost to every Client.

Cheers,
Jaime Fink, Chief Product Officer, Mimosa


#7

Jaime, I follow your posts very closely and I would just like to say that your transparency is very, very much appreciated. It really helps the Mimosa community understand why things are the way they are, as well as understanding what we can expect to see happening next. You personally, with this commitment to responsiveness and transparency, are a very big part of why I am here, and I think many others here are probably thinking exactly the same thing.

Thank you for handling the tough questions so directly and honestly! :relaxed:


#8

We have one Mimosa “beta” sector in our system. The rest of the AP’s are ubnt We did however, experience our 1st quagmire last week. As do all other WISP’s, we have monthly suspends and restores due to delinquent accounts and payment for the accounts.

We dug thru the C5 and the A5-C trying to figure how to perform a temporary suspend. I even opened a chat and the tech informed me there was no such option.

This is an extremely important feature that we need to use throughout the year. If I overlooked how to do this and was misinformed by the tech on chat, please send me the steps.

If it isn’t a feature at this time, how long would it take to add this feature?


#9

@RTC if you wanna make a new thread, this one is 2 years old, there are several ways of going about what you want to do. Lots has changed in the last 2 years.