annoying red lines in CapsmanV2 on Winbox4 and 3, must this be?

RouterOS General
1

Move the error line from CapsmanV2 into flags column?

  • Yes, with C (and the text that is currently shown as the error line)
  • Yes, with C or CD (if processed on device is included)
  • No, leave it as is, it’s fine the way it is.
0 voters

Hello,
Does anyone else have the same issue as I do, where it bothers them that in WiFi CAPsMAN, all fully running antennas have red text above them, even when inline comments are enabled?
Non-running interfaces (because of missing CAP device, maybe down, maybe not connected), on the other hand, don’t have a red line! No error!

I wrote to support and only got a "...will look into it" in response.

I would appreciate it if "operates by CAP..." were moved into the flags column with a C.
"processed by device" could be marked with a D, or even CD, but as far as I know, in CAPsMAN v2, you can’t run "process on CAPs", it always goes through the device.

[]Yes, with C (and the text that is currently shown as the error line)
[]Yes, with C or CD (if processed on device is included)
[*]No, leave it as is, it’s fine the way it is.

Here is an example from console (also RED lines) interface/wifi/print
Flags: M - MASTER; B - BOUND
Columns: NAME, MASTER-INTERFACE, CONFIGURATION.MODE, CONFIGURATION.SSID, CHANNEL.WIDTH

NAME MASTER-INTERFACE CONFIGURATION.MODE CONFIGURATION.SSID CHANNEL.WIDTH

;;; operated by CAP 10.0.0.XX, traffic processing on CAP
0 MB Wifi006ac2GHz ap WifiSID-A 20/40mhz
;;; operated by CAP 10.0.0.XY, traffic processing on CAP
1 MB Wifi101ax2GHz ap WifiSID-B 20/40mhz
;;; operated by CAP 10.0.0.XZ, traffic processing on CAP
2 B Wifi101ax2GHz2 Wifi101ax2GHz ap WifiSID-A 20/40mhz
;;; operated by CAP 10.0.0.YX, traffic processing on CAP
3 MB Wifi101ax5GHz ap WifiSID-B 20/40/80mhz
;;; operated by CAP 10.0.0.YY, traffic processing on CAP
4 B Wifi101ax5GHz2 Wifi101ax5GHz ap WifiSID-A 20/40/80mhz
;;; operated by CAP 10.0.0.YZ, traffic processing on CAP
5 MB Wifi102ax2GHz ap WifiSID-B 20/40mhz
....

this what I would prefer:

Flags: M - MASTER; B - BOUND
Columns: NAME, MASTER-INTERFACE, CONFIGURATION.MODE, CONFIGURATION.SSID, CHANNEL.WIDTH
# NAME MASTER-INTERFACE CONFIGURATION.MODE CONFIGURATION.SSID CHANNEL.WIDTH
 0 CMB Wifi006ac2GHz                     ap                  WifiSID-A          20/40mhz     
 1 CMB Wifi101ax2GHz                     ap                  WifiSID-B          20/40mhz     
 2  CB Wifi101ax2GHz2  Wifi101ax2GHz     ap                  WifiSID-A          20/40mhz     
 3 CMB Wifi101ax5GHz                     ap                  WifiSID-B          20/40/80mhz  
 4  CB Wifi101ax5GHz2  Wifi101ax5GHz     ap                  WifiSID-A          20/40/80mhz  
 5 CMB Wifi102ax2GHz                     ap                  WifiSID-B          20/40mhz

So, I’m starting a poll:
Should errors be moved to the flags column?

2

Hi,

Yes, that’s horrible to identify, with 12 caps, each dual band and ~15 ssids… 15x2x12=360 lines on capsman and 15x2 on caps, but on caps, no really usefull.
I hope have a hability in winbox to “group by” any fields… and not only by “show categories” like in the filter.

3

Has anyone from MikroTik responded? This is really extremely confusing and very distracting when trying to find something! With 12 APs and 4 virtual networks on each, it’s insane. Is it really that hard to add a flag like “don’t show warning” or something similar? Surely even MikroTik’s programmers can’t like this? Or am I missing something?

Martin.

4

Yes and no.

German would say: jein.

I go the answer that the they maybe change this, but users likes how it is.

See the “votes”. So no change.

I still think it is stupid to run a full working setup with red warning lines… “but people loves that way.”