Hey guys — at work I’ve been running the original CAPsMAN from the “wireless” package for ages, and it’s been rock solid for us. On our APs, we spin up several virtual interfaces via CAPsMAN — each one broadcasts a totally different SSID, and each SSID lives on its own separate bridge. That isolation is super important because we don’t want these networks mixing or seeing each other.
But now I’ve run into a snag. Our new MikroTik Wi-Fi AX units only support the new CAPsMAN from the “WiFi” package. When I switch to that, the whole way virtual APs get assigned to bridges shifts. From what I can tell, we have to use VLAN IDs: the APs need to be set up, the VLAN IDs need to be pushed into the network — or at least that’s how I understand it.
So, here’s my question: is there any way to configure the new CAPsMAN (WiFi package) to behave like the old one? Can I still map the CAPsMAN-created interfaces into bridges on the CAPsMAN side only, so that a single physical radio on the AP can broadcast multiple, totally isolated SSIDs — without having to mess around with VLANs?
1- Yes, ofcourse you can
2- No, IMHO VLANs are the most efficient and flexible way to handle this. Setting VLAN ID for new SSIDs and provision those works perfectly.
How did you do it previously? As far as I can see, CAPsMAN does not need to be involved with the plumbing on the cAP side. The remote Manager just sets up the wireless and virtual wireless interfaces more or less equivalent to the way you set them up at present. You are left to do your own plumbing on the cAP as before.
vLANs are a steep learning curve and I can understand the reluctance, having been through this myself in the last few months. But it is the only way I would do it now
Yes, documention is a problem... not, easy to understand, and there too much "if version is....".
Hard to understand what is the difference between wifi and wireless interface... its the same lol but not here ; one is new, the other legacy.
I'dont understand why mkt don't do like netapp, ansible, ... one version : one doc
Processing traffic over capsman instead caps, isn't a good idea for the bandwith. Except if capsman as a big cpu.
I’d like to understand things more: I have an rb5009 which I like to be the capsman. I have a CAP AC version XL.
One part of the documentation suggests I should install wifi-qcom. But that doesn’t give me a capsman menu. So I installed the wireless package on the RB5009, this gives me a capsman menu. Where is /that/ documented?
And what packages do I need to add to the base routeros?
If you want to use "old" WiFi 1-5 (802.11 a/b/g/n/ac), then you will use CAPsMAN from the Wireless package.
If you want to use the newest version of CAPsMAN, which also supports WiFi 6 and WiFi 7 (AX, BE), then you MUST use CAPsMAN from the WiFi package, and the "old" wireless package can be uninstalled from your router.
For compatibility reasons with the new CAPsMAN (WiFi package), you must use the new wireless package for your cAP XL ac. The originally installed wireless package must be replaced with the wifi-qcom-ac package.
Otherwise, you will not be able to connect the cAP XL ac unit to this newest version of CAPsMAN.
Beware, there is a problem with a lack of support for datapath options (traffic processing). Your cAP XL ac unit with the wifi-qcom-ac package does not support CAPsMAN data processing, so you must use the "Local Forwarding" (On CAP) option. This requires a little more configuration on the cAP XL ac side and is different from what we are used to doing on the "old" CAPsMAN.
Beware of another difference between legacy and modern capsman:
configuration for legacy capsman is under /capsman and is completely distinct from configuration for local radios under /interface/wireless
configuration for modern capsman is under /interface/wifi and is (or: can be) shared with configuration for local radios if there are any. There are only few capsman-specific settings, general config (e.g. channels, security profiles, etc.) for capsman is interleaved with "local radio" items.
Can one (in that new capsman under /interface/wifi) have groups of access points that carry optional networks? For example, 4 APs have both SSID network1 and SSID network2, and another has SSID “network3”?
And is there work being done in Latvia to get the existing docs polished? I hope so!
