4 weeks ago
4 weeks ago - last edited 4 weeks ago
the integration with UNMS is the only logical step not to duplicate the same development in 2 tools. The current UCRM's network features might be enough for you but mind the other users who are desperately asking us for more (e.g. more devices support, dynamic IPs, ability to run UNMS/UCRM in remote network or cloud, split shaping, a better suspension comprising HTTPS connections, really fast shaping and suspension on ER, and much much more) - all of these will be available in the new integrated version.
Yes, CRM won't comprise the current network features and data but these features will be powered by UNMS and the data will be shown in there as well. So for example, if you need to see the service device outages or throughput charts you won't see this on the CRM service page, but you will see them on the client site page (one more click needed from the service page to the client site page. That would be the only inconvenience for you, besides if it turns out some charts are really needed on the service page too, we will show them, e.g. NetFlow charts are already shown in both Network and CRM sides)
Regarding your specific questions:
- disable UNMS specific features and delete them (or hide) from our CRM
as mentioned before, we don't force you to use UNMS, but if you want to use the crm features along with the network features, then yes, at least some basic UNMS configuration would be needed. (Note that we provide migration tool moving all your CRM devices into UNMS, so again, nothing of your effort will be lost)
- have all the netflow data for all our clients
Yes, no netflow data will be lost during the upgrade, and the new data will be powered by UNMS automatically.
- 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.
Yes, the basic info about the device (like "whether there is an outage") will be shown in the client's service page. For more network related data, you will just jump to a detailed page.
- have a complete device log
Yes, even more advanced - available again, on the detailed network page for each client's service.
- device sync with Mikrotik router, also suspension sync
Yes, although in a different way - using a plugin (which is almost ready and will be released soon before the v1 release)
- unknown devices list with Netflow data
Yes, in the UNMS' Network section
- outages data, both active and past
Yes, except the past outages data won't be migrated.
- sites data with devices and interfaces
Yes, the migration tool will just move this data into the UNMS' Network module.
- backups for all the devices
Yes, except mikrotik devices but a plugin could be developed for this easily.
- auto suspension with late payment
@jma I am sorry to read about your disappointment, I assume it mainly comes from the fact that you don't want to use UNMS and its network features. Anyway, as you can see nothing will be lost with the upgrade (except minor changes usually related to 3rd party devices, but we still ensure the compatibility although it's provided in another way via plugins, I hope you understand.)
Maybe you can discuss your UNMS issues in the UNMS forum (Note that most of the ER issues will be gone with the new UNMS v1.0 and besides, the development still continues, so maybe the issues you don't like on UNMS will be gone by the v1.0 release date)
4 weeks ago
@avolve I think you may have to read my posts again. They are addressed to UBNT.
So it amazes me that you feel the need to answer in their place and tell me that I have to feel lucky.
Why should I feel lucky? How do you know what billing software we have and what we have paid for or not?
We have tested UCRM with a limited amount of our customers from the very start of the beta program until now.
UBNT even has access to our servers.
But that does not mean that we have not bought other software. Or do you think that we manually invoice our other customers with a Word template?
About me amazing you that I want MORE for free ...
Once again, read my posts. We do not want more. We want to keep what we already have in UCRM and we would really like what was promised to us years ago.
Without these promises we would not even had tested it in the first place.
We have a LOT of hardware from UBNT. And we have invested a LOT of time in this.
And we have a LOT of hardware that came with promises and then was completely abandoned by UBNT. We also have a LOT of hardware that did not even work as expected and this was never corrected. This was hardware for the bin.
This 'beta' hardware that we have bought and that we could not use anymore was not for free.
But at least I still got the feeling that it was not intended to 'use' us to test products. It was just something that you apparently experienced with UBNT hardware.
Nor do I feel that this software that we have tested is for free from UBNT's side only.
Because we support the principal 'you scratch my back, I scratch yours (maybe wrong in English but hey I am not a native speaker ... as long as you understand what I mean ...).
Our time as a beta tester and solving the problems that UCRM has caused during testing was for free also.
Yes I feel cheated. I was supporting UBNT with everything that I have done so far. I would have expected support from them also.
Only UBNT knows what we have been doing (or they don't ...) and sorry to say it like this but I think I am entitled to judge myself what I want from software that we have invested in: promises that are kept, roadmaps that are respected and not changed all the time, etc ... would have been nice.
Then at least what we have been doing would not be for free from our side. It is now. We will end up with nothing that we can use and UBNT with everything that they can offer ... for free.
4 weeks ago
@UBNT-Petr thank you for your answer. Is there a possibility of showing a comparison of demos?
A demo of a working UCRM and then a demo of the new version UNMS with the integrated UCRM with exactly the same clients, devices, etc ... in it.
4 weeks ago
@UBNT-Petr the integration with UNMS is the only logical step not to duplicate the same development in 2 tools ...
I would not mind that you take logical steps as long as you do not delete the possibilities that we have now to integrate UCRM in our companies divisions.
For example: is it possible to completely hide UNMS for administration employees? Even if these administration employees need access to Netflow data? Will there even be a Netflow chart for devices that are not UBNT as there is now in UCRM?
Is it possible to hide the advanced network features for first line support and leave them with only the basic network features that are now in UCRM?
A lot of things like that are already in UCRM. So there is no duplicate development. Just leaving the possibility to use that instead of other software and/or solutions that will not do it for us.
4 weeks ago
> is it possible to completely hide UNMS for administration employees?
Yes, you can grant permissions separately to Network and CRM module. Besides, the UNMS team is working on more detailed permission settings (similar to granularity available currently in UCRM)
> Even if these administration employees need access to Netflow data?
NetFlow data will be shown in the CRM module. If you need to give access for more detailed network views, you would just grant permissions to the Network module (and later you will specify only some areas in the Network module)
> Will there even be a Netflow chart for devices that are not UBNT as there is now in UCRM?
@jma @YNS note that many network features are independent on the client's device type. Features like NetFlow, Suspension and Shaping (managend on the gateway router) just require the client's IP, no matter what device type this IP belongs to, these features will work.