i read exist rapiraOS with polling protocol and can install on nanostation (default cpe for many wisp)… and other hardware (ap and client)
I think, makke compatible nanostation client with nstream and polling very beneficial for both companies (Mikrotik and UBiQUiTi) claiming rights over his polling method or creating a basic ROUTEROS for nanostation.
No. Search for early posts about this.
I would rather like see MikroTik alternative to Nanostation
+1
Mikrotik has better alternatives that nanostation, the RIC, but much more versatile and expensive … I think that with the high penetration that has nanostation, take a very basic version of routeros only client(router mode, with nat router and bridge) and using nstream polling , with a license at U$S 15, generate huge revenues, oswave have a client for nanostation, for that reason.
i think is more rentable than make a basic cpe.
I fully agree with marceloru on this.
Come on Mikrotik!
Actually, imho, the best thing about it is the recieving sensitivity, the power and the case wich is so damn good and easy to install. The programable led’s are also much easier to see than in custom cases for mt boards. Wich, btw, cost about half the price of ns.
I would not expect Mikrotik to spend time to make RouterOS run on a competitor’s product like the nanostation. That does not seem to me to be in their best interest.
Instead I expect them to make their own low cost complete CPE to compete with it.
Remember that they are a business trying to make a profit. Don’t expect them to go against this.
Tom
I dont mind as long as their is a low cost fully integrated CPE that runs RouterOS I will be happy!
Mikrotik could OEM the Nanostation from Ubiquiti, put a custom bios identifier string into them somehow then load RouterOS.
This would stop people just loading RouterOS onto any old Nanostation and would protect Mikrotik’s revenue stream.
Contact your MT Distributor, here, we build, assembled and test and ship out completed MT CPEs per customer specs! The price is NOT much more than the Nano, plus you get all of the features of a MT, and typically higher gain antennas too. i.e. most of our 2.4 radios have 15dbi antennas on them, instead of 10.
We have long time ago acknowledged that !
Since support is sometimes cutting the inspiration on newbies.
( I would’nt expect it either to see routeros run on ns, and I guess it would be very dificult do develop another new version for it. But it’s a damn good radio in there and it’s ready for all that he can in 5 minutes.)
For me, if I were a first time user of routeros, the bigger inconvenient would be the relatively large amount of work needed for bridging two remote networks, comparing it with the laaaaaaaaaarge offering of realtek chipset cheap competitor router and bridges. ( actually not really competitor, but some kind of alternatives).
I mean, routeros is missing a large part of the market, specifically for offering a more complete product, but more complicated to configure.
More than 70% of the people out there don’t know and don’t care what’s that a bridge, a routed network or an ospf enabled bridge or mesh. They know they want to connect three points in wireless plain and simple. With no headaches and with no hassle. And with time being valuable, learning how to use a new product not in much of the time being an option.
I know it’s been talked over and over, but MT, if I were you, I would reflect in doing something like this.
Take crossroads. Put in a dualband radio, and a decent indoor case, and there you have an excelent product, right from the start. Put a simpler version of routeros, with no dinamic routing protocols, with some of the advanced features off, and you’re on to at least half of the market you’re missing.
What are you thinking of this ?
(if it’s not the place here, please delete this post )
I prefer ROS level 3 license as is. They already have an ‘advanced/simple’ mode, maybe just expand on that, or introduce a wizard-based setup for common scenarios. But all in all, I wouldn’t go with NS as MT is just so far superior in versatility. As a consumer product, that might be different, but for what we use it for, 100%
Ekkas
I agree with this…
Peace of mind and keeping the SAME management system for all the CPE’s… software upgrades and ALL the other features which we use daily in MT - start mixing CPE’s and you are in for the long haul.
On average after installation, we only visit the CPE if the client has invited us for coffee and cake..!!! (that’s because we keep HIGH installtion standards).
I would worry about Tie-Wraps holding up pivotal parts of my network together.. no thanks.
I think I’ll stick to what I know - and the pricing is almost the same… It’s not like you are using a 100 of these a day where a small price difference would really have an effect of the GDP of the country…???
T
I don’t understand why they wouldn’t thou.. the nano stations are a pre-built system which would work great for 5 minute ‘up-and-go’ installs, while the routerboards are a ‘pick-and-choose’ system that allow you to customise your setup.
Why not make a compatible version, they could then sell 2 x the amount of licences to those of us who use Nano’s but still want Nstreme compatible ‘up-and-go’ installs for client connections…
Yes it would be great, also because, nanostation can run as ap, and routeros os is much better for managing and controlling aps.
Perhaps the Nanostation’s minimal hardware (16MB DRAM, 4MB Flash and 180MHz processor) is another reason not to think about the port. The least amount of flash that I remember on a RouterBoard was 32MB on the RB112. 4MB Flash is down to Linksys wrt54g standards and you don’t see Mikrotik rushing out to port ROS to those.
Tom
It will be better Mikrotik to license and port only the Nstreme package to Nanostations instead of the whole ROS. We need a common polling protocol.
RouterOS does not, and will not work on NS.