Maybe Im missing something but...
I am running 5.6.20 of the UniFi controller and really like the progress being made a lot. One feature that I am having trouble with is DNS. I want to use it but it doesn't work properly unless I am able to specify custom hostnames.
Take an Apple iMac for example. I want to use the gigabit interface for speed but also need to use the wireless interface so that location services work properly. Under your DNS implementation both interfaces / IPs are assigned the same hostname which causes issues when uses hostname for ssh, etc.
Really need the ability to set a custom DNS hostname for each client.
Well, simply that. the Zero Handoff support on the UAP-AC models.
AC to AC: http://community.ubnt.com/t5/UniFi-Feature-Requests/Getting-UAP-AC-Zero-Handoff-launched/idi-p/1123033
I have been using Pfsense and have played with Sophos UTM software for a few years now and have been looking at the Unifi products. I really like how integrated each piece of hardware is into a single GUI along with the functionality.
That being said I would love to see a version of the USG firmware that could be installed on regular x86 hardware. Similar to pfsense or Sophos for example. Many people have the hardware for such an application and I personally, cannot justify purchasing even more hardware just to test it out.
I would be very interested in being able to implement your software on hardware like this for example, which is similar to what I am currently running pfsense on. Virtual machine deployment would also be a very appealing application as well.
(bad english sorry)
We have total 45000 users in 19 different location in city, approximately 30 AP-Pro, 350 AP-LR, 40 AP-Outdoor+. Daily 7000-10000 user and 500GB traffic.
Our network a little complex and 4 VLAN not enough for all wireless network. (This is not about SSID count)
Please increase supported VLAN count.
It is relatively rare that a customer would want traffic from one VLAN to be indiscriminately switched over to a different VLAN, although this is precisely what the USG now does.
VLANS are used for security and to seggregate users from each other, often for physical security. The USG now bypasses all of this security by gleefully switching traffic between VLANS indiscrominately.
This option would allow this indiscriminate switching to be halted, enhancing security:
[_] Segregate VLAN traffic.
When set, traffic could go to and from the USG and the internet, but it would not be switched between VLANS with different numbers. Traffic from VLAN X could not get to VLAN Y via the USG.
This, frankly, should be the default behavior. But at least adding a simple setting like this would allow VLANS to be seperated.
I see a lot of people on the forums trying various methods of seggregating traffic. Doing it by IP address is ineffective since a user can simply assign themselves a static IP address and thus bypass physical VLAN security. The correct answer is to have the option to NOT switch traffic between VLANS.
In a previous posting (immediately previous to this one) I suggested that there be an option to isolate/segregate individual networks. It is like this one. and is actually the better option, because it allows individual VLANS to be isolated. Given the choice, the other option is the more flexible one and the better one to implement. But this option is an alternative that would likely meet 99% of most user's needs.
Hello UBNT! Great Products, Great work.
Bascially Unifi-GW and Unfi-SW run linux.
Give us packages we can install on BSD or create a repo for PFsense so we can use PFsense with Unifi Controller and get the benefits of the gateway monitoring and DPI.
It's just a suggestions. I may even do it myself if I can get some access to the firmware builds.
Given just how insucure java is, is it likely we will ever get a controler without java? I asume it must have been chosen in the begining because it was required for some feature to run. I am just hopeing something else can be used in the near future.
I have multiple AP in numerous locations... and I'd like to have multiple guest portals per AP.
There's some AP's I want open with no authenication and other ones with guest portal with simple password.
all in one site in the controller.
Working with the default bash shell on UniFi / EdgeOS products can get quite frustrating.
I wish you could add the following paragraph to the "/home/username/.bashrc" file so it autocompletes files and some commands by pressing tab.
if [ -f /etc/bash_completion ] && ! shopt -oq posix; then . /etc/bash_completion fi
Many environments have no need for 5GHz service and thus do not want to spend over triple the price for a UAP-Pro, but have VoIP or other systems which mean they already have a standards-based PoE implementation.
Please update the UAP and UAP-LR models to do PoE the right way. Passive-only PoE is something that should have been considered legacy long before the UniFi project was even started.
Also ditto on AirCam. Hardware released in this decade should not neglect the standards.
I know it isn't offloaded...BUT what if you chained the events? either run it through the offloading circuitry first then the CPU so we get both or run it the other way. Yes i know we lose the performance benefits of offloading..but myself(and others I have seen) would not care about losing the offloading :benefit" at this point..and we realize the performance hit too.
If UBNT will not do this then maybe it is time to switch to a different SOC that can actually process everything in realtime?
I can't believe I am the only one who is totally baffled and irritated by this. How can anyone at Ubiquiti possibly think this is something users want? To have a bunch of "sample" rules permanently enabled on our firewalls, without giving us any way to edit, move, disable, or delete them... Seriously?
Some of those "demo" rules reference subnets that we are using for other purposes. We don't have an "accounting" department, and I have no way of inspecting what those rules are doing since they can't even be opened. The only hint I have is their name, and the fact that they are all enabled.
I can see having some sample rules to give beginners a place to start. But locking them down so users can't even disable them, let alone delete them?
According to the blogs I have read where other folks have complained about this, Ubiquiti's take is that "it's no big deal... Users can simply add more rules above or below those, to override the sample rules."
You have got to be kidding me!
Here are some of the rules I am talking about. Use your voting power to let Ubiquiti know you want this changed.
The Unifi switch should be accessible via IP address.
I understand that full config would only be available via the controller, but just to access and reboot would be VERY helpful.
The controller is on a CloudKey attached to the PoE switch. It because unresponsive; thus could not access any network devices without a manual (pull the power) reboot of the CK or switch itself.
I'm running access points, cameras and so on in different VLANs for security reasons, just as all different SSIDs are also placed in different VLANs. For conveniance when I place a unifi unit somewhere, I usually want to place a camera nearby as well. Using the secondary ethernet port is great for that instead of running two cables a long distance. Besides the normal "i would like to really have PoE passthrough" request (I really do want that, as most people do!), I'd also really LOVE to be able to put the secondary ethernet port into another VLAN! Since I can't do that it's impossible for me to run the cameras as I'd like, and currently I have to put a switch infront of the unifi and the camera just to be able to VLAN seperate them.
I'm thinking that the PoE passthrough is not going to happen anytime soon (or at all), the "trick" or reversing the PoE does not work with VLANs for some reason, but just adding the software support of actually being able to decide the PVID for the secondary ethernet port wouldn't be that hard. It would really make the unifi have an actual switch and not just a data passthrough port.
Please port the UniFi Controler software to run on your EdgeMax products.
Ok if it is limited to a smaller number of APs.
This would be for a SOHO or other small business
since the EgeMax routers are running embedded linux this would also get you a linux port for the software as well.
One issue I've run into over the past year or so is that as versions have changed, some of the defaults have and they are often 'hidden' defaults. So what happens is, you start with a device with an old factory load, then you update a dozen times and the config is a little 'off' and the easy cure is a factory default.
The issue with the factory default on a device is that it looses provisioning settings (inform-url).
I can't factory default a remote USG for instance. It would require local access.
But, what if I could factory default and set the provisioning URL in one click? That way the device will come back online in a factory state and reprovision itself free and clean.
- sanandreas on: Ability to remove default site when multiple sites available
- sanandreas on: list cloudkey on ubnt device liston controller not in client list
- sanandreas on: DCHP settings ability to reserve IP address to a device MAC address in controller
- sanandreas on: USG has too many limitations. Basic functions on most other routers are missing or not supported
- jmorgan_xx on: New Product: Unifi MoCa
- jprillhart on: Unifi Controller Refresh Rate Setting
- mnaz on: When using Unifi it would be nice to be able to force a backup, rather then wait for the autobackup.
- scott_thomson on: Multi-tenant UniFi controller
- Jardin_Espanol on: To be able to see a history of temperature and to be able to get over temp alerts
- Jardin_Espanol on: Switch Stats, allow LAG groups to show stats for the group
- [Request] Logging failed attempts for Network
- Allow access to the controller for Ubiquiti Live Support.
- Video NVR: Categorize , Label recorded Videos
- Notes field to record helpful info
- Better error msg when setting up controller password. Not clear enough
- Ability to remove default site when multiple sites available
- list cloudkey on ubnt device liston controller not in client list
- DCHP settings ability to reserve IP address to a device MAC address in controller
- Ability to set either WAN1 or WAN2 as primary on USG
- Port forwarding WAN2 on USG not supported on controller. Accepted 11/17/2016 still waiting