New Router

Hello every1!
The lightning struck our office building and ate my old RB2011. Unfortunatly this is where i ran my Capsman server. I have 6 wap ac r2’s as AP’s and they did survived the lightning.
Im thinking that i perhaps shouldreplace the RB2011 with the newer L009. Without doing any research(to save som time) im askin you guys what your opinion on this is? I heard there was a newer capsman version out there? Could this be a problem?

Ouch … not a pleasant experience.

If you go with L009 without radio, it is perfectly possible to install wireless package (as of 7.13) and run legacy capsman on there.
If you go for L009 with radio, it’s an AX radio son wave2 drivers only. Still then you can load additional wireless package on it but then you will loose the local radio function.

If your wap AC’s are all ARM based and purely used as access point, you can also opt to install wifi-qcom-ac package on them (as of 7.13) and enjoy wave2 drivers. If have it running on 2 test setups using AC2 and cAP AC, makes a big difference.

I use 4011 without radio.
Pretty powerful cpu, classic capsman works fine.
https://mikrotik.com/product/rb4011igs_rm

In that case … I raise you with RB5009. More future proof.

The L1009 radio only provides 2.4ghz wifi and its throughput is very limited.
Its a very sexy looking router, so if you want arm candy its good, for many practical reasons avoid!!

The correct replacement is the RB5009.
If you budget does not permit this then look at the hapax3

Is there a possibility to manage old CAPSMAN with hapax3?

Yes, but it then can’t manage it’s own interfaces. Can only work as dual capsman for other devices. See this table:
https://help.mikrotik.com/docs/display/ROS/Wireless

Thanks for all the replys :slight_smile: I’ll consider with my colleagues wich one it’ll be.

Just to be clear and to amplify Normis, comment, my suggestion of ax3 was not for its wifi but for its throughput RAM, CPU etc…
Its pretty decent for a home router, but since we dont know the ‘load’ on the system the suggestion of the 5009 may be more appropriate