Senior Member
Posts: 3,441
Registered: ‎07-28-2009
Kudos: 1048
Solutions: 44

Re: UCRM Roadmap

Also with UNMS v1 how will plan speeds be handled when I currently have a 3rd party application (Preseem) that pulls the plan speed data from uCRM and sets the proper speeds in their shaper?  Will that functionality go away?

Ubiquiti Employee
Posts: 4,163
Registered: ‎12-10-2015
Kudos: 1472
Solutions: 315

Re: UCRM Roadmap

The UCRM won't be discontinued. The new version of UCRM (called v3.0) will just become part of UNMS (v1).
The most of features and API will be still available. So you will be able to implement your custom shaping, or whatever on your own using UCRM API.

You might just need to use a bit of UNMS API besides the CRM API to get some "network-related data", which won't be available in CRM, e.g. the IP address of client's service devices (i.e. devices of a client site)
Senior Member
Posts: 3,441
Registered: ‎07-28-2009
Kudos: 1048
Solutions: 44

Re: UCRM Roadmap

[ Edited ]

Not really the news I was hoping for.  Correct me if wrong but it looks like the merger will break suspension support for Mikrotik routers as the article you linked to says an edgerouter is required for that.

 

If true I guess I will just stay on uCRM v2.

 

I will say I completely understand why merging uCRM and UNMS makes sense from a business standpoint for Ubiquiti.  Having a free device and customer managment software that is tailored for the UBNT ecosystem will either encourage people to stay with UBNT equipment or convert to UBNT equipment.  However as uCRM at this time is pretty platform agnostic along with almost giving complete feature support for Mikrotik routers for things like suspension, taking that away may cause some pushback that you might not expect.

 

I will say that as of now I cannot see a time I will move away from Mikrotik for my routing needs and migrate to UBNT so tying key features of uCRM3.0 (UNMS 1.0) to UBNT Edgerouters is dissapointing.  It is just a shame that to continue to use uCRM I will now have to install the bloat of UNMS and now have to work around or against it.

 

I expect that UNMS users will be very welcome to uCRM integration, but I expect there to be many uCRM users who do not currently use and are not planning to use UNMS and might not take the forced use of UNMS as well.  

Ubiquiti Employee
Posts: 4,163
Registered: ‎12-10-2015
Kudos: 1472
Solutions: 315

Re: UCRM Roadmap

Some of the 3rd party HW features are already managed by UCRM Plugins and we don't plan to restrict such compatibilities. Also, the suspension feature on Mikrotik would need to be managed by a plugin, which enables the community to take part in the development and improve the management of 3rd party HW on their own. BTW, as Ubiquiti, we don't really have resources to implement integration with any HW and there were a couple of complaints about the existing integrations but this is a great opportunity for everyone to improve the open-sourced plugins.

We know there is a lot to improve on ER, but you might like the progress we made with ER 2.0.2 (will be released soon), the performance of shaping, suspension has been improved tremendously.
Regular Member
Posts: 720
Registered: ‎03-08-2014
Kudos: 282
Solutions: 24

Re: UCRM Roadmap

We used to work with UBNT equipment only.

Now it is Ubiquiti antennas for each and every client and for all the AP.

But Netonix switches after terrible disasters with all Ubiquiti switches that we have ever used. And we have Mikrotik after equally terrible disasters with all ER we have ever used. I don't know if we were the only ones but all the problems that we ever had were gone as soon as we implemented Mikrotik and Netonix for switches and gateways and we therefore have literally thrown dozens of gateways and switches in the bin. So fed up with the continous problems at that time!

I never want to go back to UBNT equipment for those.

We will also never use UNMS. PRTG is a better solution for us as we want all our equipment to be monitored, not just UBNT.

We now have been using UCRM from in the beginning with approximately 500 clients, waiting and waiting for inventory module and some other features so that we can use it with all our clients in two different countries.

And I was very happy with upcoming features on the roadmap. Although the inventory module is the only thing we really need to implement it completely.

The ticketing system is not complete for us and most likely will never be.

But the road UCRM is taking now is a huge huge disappointment. I will stop upgrading and we will start looking for something else.

Regular Member
Posts: 705
Registered: ‎10-11-2013
Kudos: 213
Solutions: 3

Re: UCRM Roadmap


@jma wrote:

We used to work with UBNT equipment only.

Now it is Ubiquiti antennas for each and every client and for all the AP.

But Netonix switches after terrible disasters with all Ubiquiti switches that we have ever used. And we have Mikrotik after equally terrible disasters with all ER we have ever used. I don't know if we were the only ones but all the problems that we ever had were gone as soon as we implemented Mikrotik and Netonix for switches and gateways and we therefore have literally thrown dozens of gateways and switches in the bin. So fed up with the continous problems at that time!

I never want to go back to UBNT equipment for those.

We will also never use UNMS. PRTG is a better solution for us as we want all our equipment to be monitored, not just UBNT.

We now have been using UCRM from in the beginning with approximately 500 clients, waiting and waiting for inventory module and some other features so that we can use it with all our clients in two different countries.

And I was very happy with upcoming features on the roadmap. Although the inventory module is the only thing we really need to implement it completely.

The ticketing system is not complete for us and most likely will never be.

But the road UCRM is taking now is a huge huge disappointment. I will stop upgrading and we will start looking for something else.


With Netonix we went the same way but arent happy at all. They die like flies. Ports freeze, Boards die, Power supplies die, FANs are dead very often. This "proper grounding" they tell you is BS in most cases. Dont know wether the electric design is bad or they use cheap components. But I never had to replace that much switches with another vendor.

 

We are very happy with the EPS16 (feeded with DC).

 

The road UCRM/UNMS is taking is good for me but the road is long and it is still not at a stage it could do all we need. It is a good idea to open it as much as possible for 3rd party plugins as they never could do everything wisp-customer needs. 

Combining UCRM and UNMS is natural as both need a lot of the same information.

 

 

Highlighted
Senior Member
Posts: 3,441
Registered: ‎07-28-2009
Kudos: 1048
Solutions: 44

Re: UCRM Roadmap

[ Edited ]

@UBNT-Petr wrote:
Also, the suspension feature on Mikrotik would need to be managed by a plugin, which enables the community to take part in the development and improve the management of 3rd party HW on their own. 

@UBNT-Petr  Fair enough, but how about a small compromise?  Since uCRM currently supports automatic/manual suspension using mikrotik routers, how about you guys take your current implementation/code and turn it into a plugin for UNMS v1.0?  That way those of us who depend on Mtik routers and uCRM for suspension do not lose the current function and will be more prone to upgrade.  Also if you publish the plugin and its code it gives the community a head start on creating an improved plugin for Mtik or other 3rd party routers.

Ubiquiti Employee
Posts: 4,163
Registered: ‎12-10-2015
Kudos: 1472
Solutions: 315

Re: UCRM Roadmap

@jma sorry to hear you had some issues with UBNT equipment. But talking about UCRM, what exactly makes you feel that UCRM is heading the wrong way?

Note that, the planned integration with UNMS doesn't force you to use UNMS. If you are just using the current UCRM's billing features, you will be able to use it without any issues or changes in the new UCRM version 3.0 (which just becomes part of UNMS app) Actually, you won't recognize any difference, if you don't want to dive into UNMS features or interactions between the crm and the network module.
Ubiquiti Employee
Posts: 4,163
Registered: ‎12-10-2015
Kudos: 1472
Solutions: 315

Re: UCRM Roadmap

@sbyrd yes, we plan to kick off the mktik suspension plugin from our side, and it should be available before the first official release of integrated UNMS & CRM.
Regular Member
Posts: 720
Registered: ‎03-08-2014
Kudos: 282
Solutions: 24

Re: UCRM Roadmap

[ Edited ]

@UBNT-Petr I think @sbyrd  is describing it perfectly.

We are using Mikrotik routers and we do not want to change anything.

And certainly not with third party plugins that may or may not work in future upgrades.

Also, we have waited a couple of years now for the inventory module (which was actually an idea from me in the first place). It still is not there and now it will also be part of UNMS??

We really do not need  UNMS. In fact I think it is very bad idea to force this on users.

As I understand it, even the basic network features that are in UCRM now will not even work out of the box in the integrated version.

And you would also need ER to have network features.

 

We will NEVER use anything from UBNT that is not sending or receiving hardware.

No switches, no gateways, no solar panels, ... as we have the experience that all this hardware always comes with a lot of bugs and problems. 
Only the wireless transmitting hardware is top for us.

 

I really do not understand. Why change something that has been like this for such a long time.

UNMS and UCRM are standalone products and work fine. They could have been made to work together without forcing the combined use for features that are now present in the standalone software.

Why did we beta test UCRM for such a long time if you now change it completely?

UCRM could have been perfect for us but I just do not believe this is going in the right direction for us.

Ubiquiti Employee
Posts: 4,163
Registered: ‎12-10-2015
Kudos: 1472
Solutions: 315

Re: UCRM Roadmap

> We really do not need  UNMS. In fact I think it is very bad idea to force this on users.

@jma as mentioned before, we don't force you to use network management in UNMS. The UNMS (with the CRM module) would just need to be installed on your server, but you don't need to use it. Just the UNMS' CRM module will be the part which you would use.

 

Those we need the network part of crm (suspension, shaping, netflow, outage monitoring, etc), would use UNMS' Network module and it makes sense to merge it as the features common for both modules don't need to be duplicated in both modules. This will help us focus on further development related to crm features. 

 

Same applies to the plugins. Sharing the development with the community makes perfect sense especially for 3rd part HW integrations. We would do our best to help with this, but it wouldn't be fair to UBNT users if we spent to much time on mikrotik...

Regular Member
Posts: 720
Registered: ‎03-08-2014
Kudos: 282
Solutions: 24

Re: UCRM Roadmap

@UBNT-Petr  

 

I know the software is for free. But your hardware is not. And we have bought a lot of hardware from you.

 

I do not see it like you.

I think it is not fair to beta testers that have spent time to help you develop this that you force them to work with your hardware or lose the basic network features. You should at least keep the basic functionality as it is there and works fine and is also expected in a CRM. All our cpe and ap are ubnt and still it is not enough for you to give us the flexibility that we require for what is surely a commercial reason.

We have bought all your hardware and were forced to abandon some products because they were really bad or discontinued by you without warning because you couldn't get it rigtr. Now we have it with your software as well.

I am disappointed but we should have known.

We have trusted ubnt too many times with new products now and we have always lost money and more importantly time. Why did we actually beta test this?? I can almost not believe that we will lose what we have and need in the final product.

It will not happen again that we work with something that we can not buy for something that we can not easily replace. And we will slowly move away from ubnt all together. It is a principal question for me. I really do not like the philosoohy of your company anymore.

Ubiquiti Employee
Posts: 4,163
Registered: ‎12-10-2015
Kudos: 1472
Solutions: 315

Re: UCRM Roadmap

@jma I think there are some misunderstandings related to the planned UNMS v1. Let me clarify some stuff:

 

- We don't require you use ER, you don't need to buy any HW.

- We don't require you use network management in UNMS

- No network features will be lost with the upgrade from UCRM 2.X to 3.0(unms) and the same applies to the billing features.

- Nothing related to UCRM/UNMS has been discontinued. Please note the UNMS v1 dev version is not the final version. (shaping on airMAX devices is under development now and the mikrotik plugin will be provided. Not sure what else you think will be lost)

New Member
Posts: 12
Registered: ‎11-01-2018
Kudos: 1

Re: UCRM Roadmap

@UBNT-Petr Do we have any timeframe yet of when UNMS-V1 beta will be available for testing?

Ubiquiti Employee
Posts: 4,163
Registered: ‎12-10-2015
Kudos: 1472
Solutions: 315

Re: UCRM Roadmap

@MShuttleworth it should be available for the alpha users in a week or two. The public beta version a few weeks later.
Senior Member
Posts: 3,441
Registered: ‎07-28-2009
Kudos: 1048
Solutions: 44

Re: UCRM Roadmap

[ Edited ]

@UBNT-Petr wrote:

@jmaI think there are some misunderstandings related to the planned UNMS v1. Let me clarify some stuff:

 

- We don't require you use ER, you don't need to buy any HW.

- We don't require you use network management in UNMS

- No network features will be lost with the upgrade from UCRM 2.X to 3.0(unms) and the same applies to the billing features.

- Nothing related to UCRM/UNMS has been discontinued. Please note the UNMS v1 dev version is not the final version. (shaping on airMAX devices is under development now and the mikrotik plugin will be provided. Not sure what else you think will be lost)


@UBNT-Petr  Will the API calls used to pull things like Plan speed and device IP address be changing?  I ask because I use a third party service (Preseem) to do my rate shaping and they pull the device IP to shape along with plan speeds from uCRM.  They do the same for Powercode, Sonar, and other CRM services.  If API calls are changing I have to get with them to have them change the code so this does not break in UNMS v1.0.

Ubiquiti Employee
Posts: 4,163
Registered: ‎12-10-2015
Kudos: 1472
Solutions: 315

Re: UCRM Roadmap

@sbyrd the "business related api" like services, plans, speed, etc will be unaffected. For the network related data (devices, IPs..) you would need to call the UNMS' API. (Services will have a new attribute "unmsClientSiteId" which can be used to retrieve all the data of the related UNMS Client Site, i.e. its devices, IPs)
Regular Member
Posts: 720
Registered: ‎03-08-2014
Kudos: 282
Solutions: 24

Re: UCRM Roadmap

@UBNT-Petr 

 

If I would be obligated to use UBNT network monitoring software because there were no other available I would even prefer to use AirControl in the current version for the rest of my life than switch to UNMS.

We do not want to use UNMS at all, and I really do not want to use ER. We have bought, used, and thrown ER in the bin and we will not go back.

Can we still find this in your future UCRM versions?

 

- disable UNMS specific features and delete them (or hide) from our CRM

- have all the netflow data for all our clients

- have all the IP addresses for all our clients and AP and see if the CPE is down, online, unreachable, ping stats, signa and ccq stats, rx/tx stats for the past 60 days.

- have a complete device log 

- device sync with Mikrotik router, also suspension sync

- unknown devices list with Netflow data

- outages data, both active and past

- sites data with devices and interfaces

- backups for all the devices

- auto suspension with late payment

- etc ...

 

 

In short: everything that is in UCRM now. A CRM with basic network features without the need of using UNMS or the use of specific hardware and/or software in the clients devices, our switches, router, etc ...

 

We really do NOT want anything from UNMS and we would like the CRM to have the same GUI as it has now. Is this possible with your future version yes or no?

 

Senior Member
Posts: 3,441
Registered: ‎07-28-2009
Kudos: 1048
Solutions: 44

Re: UCRM Roadmap

[ Edited ]

@UBNT-Petr wrote:


Note that, the planned integration with UNMS doesn't force you to use UNMS. If you are just using the current UCRM's billing features, you will be able to use it without any issues or changes in the new UCRM version 3.0 (which just becomes part of UNMS app) Actually, you won't recognize any difference, if you don't want to dive into UNMS features or interactions between the crm and the network module.

Not 100% true if you use the IP address information in uCRM to do traffic shaping as the UNMS side will have to be used for that along with the fact UNMS does not have the ability to anything but record the IP address of data carrying device and does not appear to be able to handle things like clients who have a static IP block (range of IPs) or devices that are in bridge mode.

Regular Member
Posts: 720
Registered: ‎03-08-2014
Kudos: 282
Solutions: 24

Re: UCRM Roadmap

@UBNT-Petr  As I do not see any reply anymore to my question if we will be able to continue using UCRM with all the present features, without UNMS needed or even being present in the software, with the same GUI and without the need of specific firmware or hardware, it is clear to me that this will not be the case.

 

I personally think it is not fair to add features to beta software that now is already in use with some companies, for the purpose of real testing, and then present the same beta users with a final product that does not even give them the same functionality that they have invested time in to help you develop.

And you have also led us to believe that you were going to add an inventory that I have requested myself and was accepted almost two years ago!

All this time we have been waiting because the software was going in a clear direction that suited our needs.

But it now seems clear to me that we will never be able to use it unless we do not upgrade anymore and keep on using this unfinished software. And that still leaves us with the need of features that we have been patiently waiting for.

 

UCRM was going in the right direction with the integration of the features that we will need. But I always was surprised that some things on the roadmap were never present in the upgrades.

Some features are even obligatory in EU but are still not added, although they were already on the roadmap two years ago. We were very patient as promises were made that all would eventually be integrated in future betas and final product.

Now I know that you were very busy trying to integrate UNMS and UCRM into one completely different software package.

 

You can do whatever you want, it is your software. But this is a warning to all future beta testers: do not believe roadmaps, do not believe promises, do not invest too much time in testing, do not invest too much time in helping a company that promises you something 'for free' and asks for help. You may be very disappointed in the future.

 

I regret the time that I have invested in testing this software. And I also regret the time that we will have to invest in moving to other software now.

But I really do feel cheated. My trust in this company is completely gone.

We will buy software that is already complete now. That way at least we know what we will have after our investment.