It would be nice to see something like AirControl or UniFi for managing / viewing multiple edge routers (centralized configuration backups, mass firmware updates, etc). Anything like this in the works? Maybe call it EdgeControl and mimic the functionality of AirControl?
Would be really useful to be able to monitor battery voltage on an EdgePower with DC PSU. The system log displays this info every minute.
All you need is to add snmp and some OID's for voltage, temperature, standby, live state, etc.
Right now, there is a basic Setup wizard. What are required is basically Wizards to setup Site-2-Site VPN and also RemoteAccess VPN, this can be just a script that will basically just assume there is no VPN,etc in place at the moment. But it should also take care of Firewall,MTU, MSS,etc...
I just learned the EdgeMax software auto-adds my ISP's DNS servers to the resolv.conf file EVEN IF i have specified my own OPENDNS servers. Check your resolv.conf file. SURPRISE!!! Unwanted DNS servers!
agd@curtain:/etc$ cat resolv.conf
nameserver 22.214.171.124 # OPEN DNS Server 1
nameserver 126.96.36.199 # OPEN DNS Server 2
nameserver 188.8.131.52 #nameserver written by /opt/vyatta/sbin/vyatta_update_resolv.pl
nameserver 184.108.40.206 #nameserver written by /opt/vyatta/sbin/vyatta_update_resolv.pl
nameserver 220.127.116.11 #nameserver written by /opt/vyatta/sbin/vyatta_update_resolv.pl
Here is a thread and "working as designed" configmation from UBNT. I doubt many people know this is happening as it is not desired behavior for many of us. If we specify DNS servers to use, that means we probably don't want to use other ones!
Please add a GUI and/or CLI option to prohibit use of upstream DHCP DNS settings.
Please address ASAP UBNT.
+ ikev2 is better for mobile devices
+ ikev2 / eap-mschapv2 works out of the box with Windows, Windows Phone 8.1
+ Strongswan App on Linux, IOS and Android can be used
I was looking at the GUI today to see what IP addresses some of my devices were given. When looking at the leases in the GUI, it would very useful to see a device that should have a static IP address and be able to click on it (or some other GUI affordance) to convert it to a static assignment.
By doing this, the GUI would pre-fill out the MAC address so I don't have to copy and paste it. The GUI would pre-fill out the device name. The GUI would pre-fill out the IP address that is already assigned (well this part might not work since you don't want to statically allocate an address from the dynamic pool).
Anyway, this would be a useful, helpful feature.
I would like to see IKEv2 implemented among the other VPN options. It is a built-in client in Windows 7/8, and strongswan also came out with a very capable client for Android.
Since Strongswan 4.5.2 was incorporated, it should provide robust configuration options. Additionally, IKEv2 configured for remote access, should easily run alongside existing site-site and IKEv1 based RA settings.
The major problem that we've encountered with these devices is the impossibility of routing several subnets or even default route to ipsec vpn. I suppose it wouldn't be too difficult to create a virtual interface similar to "tun" lets say "st" which could be bound by user to specific ipsec vpn and then static routes could be configured to it, e.g.:
"set protocols static interface-route 0.0.0.0/0 next-hop-interface st0" or
"set protocols static route 0.0.0.0/0 next-hop x.x.x.x" where x.x.x.x is an address from subnet configured on st0 interface
Based on the post here, enchance the uPnP support.
1) Provide in the CLI the ability to see the current mapping activitated by uPnP and the device that configured those rules.
2)Provide the ability to reset all the uPnP rules and/or selectively delete them
3)Provide an option for the router to automatically delete them on reboot or retain.
Nice to have would be all this in the GUI as well as turning on / off uPnP in the GUI.
I would also recommending adding a warning when activating uPnP that it provides a security risk and it is not recommended.
It would be great if there was an option when creating a NAT rule to select an option (checkbox perhaps and the ability to choose protocol or a default to tcp) that, with the saving of the NAT rule, create a basic associated firewall rule in the cases where someone simply wants to open port 80 to the public they dont have to create both NAT and Firewall rule.
If one has something more complex in mind... don't check the box, or modify the associated firewall rule after it is created.
Create a standard NAT rule:
Destination port: 80
Translation: to 192.168.1.10
One would check the "create an associated 'accept' firewall rule"
The option to type in the protocol would appear (or be editable when the box is checked) and save the NAT rule which would create the associated firewall rule below:
Destination: address 192.168.1.10
New PortFowarding wizard changes should appear in the Firewall and Nat pages under the security tab.
I think it is unconvenient that firewall and NAT rules created by the port fowarding wizard do not appear in the associated GUI pages.
There are a couple of issues I have with the way EdgeOS handles groups. My company uses both EdgeRouters and Cisco ASA devices. Cisco seems way more advanced in group handling compared to EdgeOS. You can specify single host devices, subnets and ranges. Whenever something in the network changes, be it subnets, host IPs or whatever, I almost never touch the firewall / NAT rules manually on Cisco devices. The only thing I do is modifying a subnet object or a host object - rules where these object are used, will be updated automatically. Sometimes I edit a rule and simply add or remove a new/old object with very few clicks because Cisco allows multiple selections. EdgeOS is different and groups in EdgeOS are not quite the same as network objects in Cisco environments.
First and foremost there is nothing like a single host object in EdgeOS. Address groups are .. well groups and can't be entered as translation target in a nat rule or similar even if the adress group contains only a single IP. As soon as a server is moved in the network, one would have to modify each and every rule where the server is used - manually, because the translation address is an IP, not a variable like a Cisco host object.
Second is that it's not allowed to select multiple groups (e.g. network groups). It's a single drop down list and as soon as a rule has to match more than one group, the rule has to be copied and modified to match every network group. Cisco can have several network groups in one rule. Yes, I could create a big network group containing all subnets in the other groups, but then it's unwanted redundancy again. As soon as one subnet changes, one would have to modify both the original network group and every other group where this subnet is being used. Nesting groups could be a solution, like a parent group containing several network groups - one change would be adopted by all groups where this specific sub-group is used.
Third: When doing a DNAT with subnets (e.g. 192.168.2.0/24 to 192.168.1.0/24) I can't select a network group as translation target as discussed above. But I can't even use a network group (with a single subnet in it) as destination match either. EdgeOS tells me to explicetly use destination subnets when translation to another subnet. Again, hardcoded IP addresses/subnets contrary to Cisco simply using a subnet object.
Most of the time it's no big deal to do the changes manually. But there is always the risk of a typo or simply missed rules. When firewall and nat rules are configured with subnet and host objects like Cisco does, then it's just a matter to change this object ONCE. In EdgeOS you might have to touch each and every rule as "groups" aren't allowed or can't be used in some situations.
Even though Cisco isn't beyond all doubt either, there's a lot Ubiquiti can learn of.
To use EdgeRouters in my company was my idea because they are a affordable and highly reliable. My colleagues at our headquarters were suspicous when I introduced them to the ER. The HQ uses Cisco only (money doesn't matter) but they were quite impressed of the capabilities of this nice piece of hardware and started to use it in small applications as well. Anyways, the GUI seems underwhelming and lacks lots of advanced functions that make things easier to handle. Unfortunately the above issues can't be solved via CLI either, same restrictions.
Well, at least Ubiquiti added the group names to the NAT overview since v1.7 or v1.8 I think, in v1.6 nothing was shown in the rule header when a group was used and that was a real pain in the ..... with lots of NAT rules without any source/destination shown..
Maybe Ubiquiti reconsiders the groups and gets some inspiration from my request.
- unixninja92 on: DHCP entries for non-network IPs
- mWare on: Make the LEDs more useful & safe
- waterside on: Do not require a password for a user that has an SSH key configured
- khbkhb on: IoT/Security wizard
- twaffle on: When using PPPoE have checkmark to auto apply MSS Clamping
- pw on: object into object-group into firewalling
- feedmytv on: Unbound for DNS
- Bryanrca on: EdgeOS as a VM
- Tritorus on: Upgrade Linux kernel to at least 4.4
- thorntonbros on: Auto negotiate QoS (smart queue) settings
- Provide as CLI option to trigger a visual "alert" on a switch
- PoE Device Power Management such as Ping Watch, Scheduled power reboot , PoE schedule, PoE Usage
- Run "update webproxy blacklists" with 19 priority to avoid slowness
- BGP peerings with link local ipv6 adresses
- EdgeSwitch BPDUGuard Auto Recovery
- EdgePoint S4 (example is 'AP on a stick')
- Configuration File Full Timestamp
- DHCP entries for non-network IPs
- add network type selection in OSPF interface configuration UI
- Queue changes to QoS like you do in Unifi because each change to QoS is slow