Support an ieee 1905.1

RouterOS
1

Hi, thanks for accepting. I have an MT Hex S that I use as a router and four TP-Link AX53 access points that support IEEE 1905.1, i.e., the popular EasyMesh/OneMesh.
I kindly request/beg you to implement a controller for this in the MT software. Managing the routing of which clients connect where is a nightmare, and an EasyMesh controller would completely solve the problem.

2
3

This is the first thing that I’ve set in my router

/interface ethernet switch rule
add comment="Drop 0x893a (IEEE 1905.1)" mac-protocol=0x893A new-dst-ports="" ports=ether1 switch=switch1
4

i do not want to drop protocol, i want to run a controller on MT like have tplink

1 Like
5

Yes yes, but then reality hits and this is the only mention of EasyMesh that you’ll see in MikroTik products at least for the upcoming couple of years, if not ever.

Cheers.

6

for me, your answer is offtopic, im asking about controller, you wrote me about drop protocol, if you to not have anything to say for my question please do not answer

7

It will not be implemented. Take a chill pill.

8

Thank you for your answer, there is no need to take a chill pill, it is enough to answer questions precisely if you know the answer, if you don't know it is a good practice not to answer :wink: and I am sure that the question was quite simple

9

Since you didn’t bother searching the forum for an existing topic about this, why should I bother with a simple answer?

And like I’ve said, that rule I’ve mentioned is most likely the only thing that will ever touch EasyMesh on a MikroTik device. Deal with it.

Ask the other vendors to support CAPsMAN. :upside_down_face:

1 Like
10

MT does not follow other brands' and natively implements own solutions.
If you need EasyMesh then find and try to install proper docker app but forget applying it to MT gear.

11

understood, thank you

12

I also happen to agree that EasyMesh on Mikrotik is unlikely to happen. But of course anything is possible.

But my real question: I've looked a bit (very superficially) into what OpenMesh does, and it's basically all of capsman and then some. IEEE has a habit of releasing really convoluted it-can-optionally-do-everything standards. Can devices from different manufacturers actually (i.e. in practice) work together? Or maybe with some really reduced feature set?

I hear openwrt has some support. Does it work?

13

Thanks for the reply. The problem with Capsman is that it's very difficult to find the optimal configuration for individual MT APs to ensure that every device works—a vacuum cleaner with Wi-Fi that moves around the house, phones, or other IOTs that move around... so routing on Capsman is out of the question.
I tested it by setting up double NAT, adding another TP-Link AX53 as an EasyMesh controller, and everything worked perfectly. Unfortunately, the TP-Link software functionality or OpenWRT is far behind the MikroTik, so the main cable router remains MT.
I'm eagerly awaiting a Docker; I haven't found a solution at the moment.
I contacted TP-Link to ask if they could make/sell a hardware EasyMesh controller for a fee.
If introducing this feature to MikroTik involved some kind of fee, I'd be interested too.

14

and the accusation that I didn't search the forum, threads about the request to introduce this standard to mt are on the forum but , only the answers are again for not asking the question ;p

15

From what I see, a lot of people make the choice to use Mikrotik as the router and then use another manufacturer's wifi mesh.

I have only implemented relatively simple wifi networks, and generally I have low expectations of wifi, but for me, Mikrotik has always worked fine, i.e. nothing stellar but nothing broken. Where I have seen difficulties is when every advanced functionality is enabled, some client just can't cope. (My personal favorite is an Intel driver that refuses to connect when WPA3 Personal and GCMP is enabled. The error message it gives is that it only supports GCMP in enterprise mode, but then - even though CCMP is available - refuses to use it until GCMP is disabled. And there are lots of these stories.)

It seems that other manufacturers like TP Link have a better handle on this situation. Probably part of it is that they assume as default the most compatible settings (disable WPA3, especially GCMP, don't select frequencies/channels that many devices don't support, and so on) But with these more advanced things being disabled (or not enabled) on Mikrotik, I don't see a difference. Again, this is based on an admittedly meager amount of experience.

16

Thanks for the reply. Despite enabling and disabling various features like the encryption method, frequency binding (which provides the BE standard), and other bells and whistles like beamforming, TPLink has never caused any device to fail to connect, which is something MikroTik unfortunately lacks. I understand that MikroTik isn't designed for SoHo, and Wi-Fi support in budget routers is typically a bells and whistles for those who want to spend forever digging, not for those who set it up and forget about it.

I'm not even mentioning the performance difference between Ros6 and Ros7, where the performance drop is common. But that's off-topic, so it can be omitted.

17

In a network I once managed, with about 1,500 computers, no MikroTik was ever used as an AP, with constant compatibility issues.

However, when it comes to a router, I believe there's no alternative for the price. MikroTik outperforms every other solution in this budget in terms of functionality (and, on newer boards, performance).

This has gotten off-topic.

Looks like we'll have to look for an alternative to run EasyMesh.

18

Which is the key point. The Forum is full of people requesting of Mikrotik a currently unavailable feature. Often the debate falls to “of course I can do it on gear from another supplier, but that will cost me a lot more”.

I imagine that if there's a financially beneficial market opportunity for MT, e.g. through being able to sell more products, they might consider it.

19

The solution to this problem is incredibly simple, the MT team estimates how much it costs to implement a certain functionality, and everyone is happy. MT has extra cash, and we have the bells and whistles.

20

Well, why use CAPsMAN at all if you configure each AP individually?

Also the most likely culprit with devices not wanting to connect with default config is due to ‘management protection’ left to the default ‘auto’, setting that to disabled makes every crappy IoT happy. But again, this is also mentioned numerous times around the forum on ‘x device doesn’t want to connect' topics/posts.