I'm struggling with this issue already for some time and cannot make any progress on this, hence posting the question in this forum.

I'm having multiple Mikrotik wAP access points installed on a harbour. I want to make a connect from within my boat to the WIFI network. Unfortunately it doesn't work, I cannot make a connection.

I've included some screenshots on the signal strength. The signal strength inside the boat is not that good, the range is -75dBm to -79dBm. From what I read I understand that this should be sufficient to be able to make a connection, is my assumption correct?

As there are multiple AP's on the harbour i've configured them in such a way that they use different WIFI channels, the AP's configured to use the same channel are the furthest away from each other. The Access List on the various AP's is configured as -81..120 Accept and -120..-80 Reject. This to prevent that a device is trying to connect to an AP further away than the AP closer by with a stronger signal. See also screenshot.

Any suggestions why I cannot make a connection? And what is required to improve this situation?
When checking other clients connected, I see signal strength from -77 and -79, they are connected to the AP, that is what I see on the screenshot. How come they can connect and I cannot connect with my MacBook Pro, iPone and iPad?

You gave almost all information. The only part that's missing is the LOG of the AP, The LOG needs one extra topic. In System Logging add "wireless" as topics. Then you can follow all attemps and progress of the client connects. (The good ones, to be compared with the failing ones).

This wifi connection will work fine even at -86dBm (if you allow it in the access-list) So being at -75dBm is good enough for a SNR of 20 dB (noise is at -95 dBm). Ok you only get MCS1 encoding , and that gives 13 Mbps interface rate. But nothing here prevents you from connecting.

It is remarkable that you have a self-assigned IP address (169.254.x.x). You should have been given a DHCP lease in normal circumstances. Your client device needs to be set at automatic use of received IP address.

But there are many parameters in a WLAN config. Most can be read from your screenshots, but quite some are missing information.

So to help following material is needed ("=terminal commands to extract")
1. LOG file (with topic wireless enabled) :" /log print file=yourfilename"
2. Full config of one AP." / export file=yoursecondfilename hide-sensitive " . Mask any MAC address or other confidential information if you need to.

Download from Files, and use attachments to upload here.

Thanks for your feeedback, really appreciated as I'm stuck with this problem and many complaining users.

I've included the AP configuration and log file.

The MAC addresses have been changed by text. The "ipad_mac" is the device I'm using for testing. So this it the text to focus on.
The other MAC addresses in the log file have been changed into: Other_Mac1, Other_Mac2, Other_Mac3, etc. etc.
If changed the Accss List configuration to:

I noticed also the text "banned" in the log file for a different device. Any idea why this is?

I also noticed the following configuration in the router. Could that be off influence of the behaviour I'm experiencing

I see the iPad in the Registration list. But at the moment of taking the screenshot the signal strength was -87 (I guess this is not good) and the Access List rules will kick the iPad out of the connection.

I noticed also the text "banned" in the log file for a different device. Any idea why this is?

Screenshot 2020-10-26 at 09.03.08.png

Check this and it's posts above, and linked posts .... viewtopic.php?f=7&t=160748#p824942

I see the iPad in the Registration list. But at the moment of taking the screenshot the signal strength was -87 (I guess this is not good) and the Access List rules will kick the iPad out of the connection. Screenshot 2020-10-26 at 09.11.31.png

If the signal stays below the signal strength in the allow (authorize) access-list rule , it will be disconnected after the "Allow Signal Out of Range" time given, or the default of 10 sec.

I also noticed the following configuration in the router. Could that be off influence of the behaviour I'm experiencing

Screenshot 2020-10-26 at 09.08.06.png

It's only valid for that WLAN interface. -75 dBm is only good if you have better AP signal around. After the "Allow Signal out of Range" time, the default setting for the WLAN will be used.

Thanks for your feeedback, really appreciated as I'm stuck with this problem and many complaining users.

I've included the AP configuration and log file.

The MAC addresses have been changed by text. The "ipad_mac" is the device I'm using for testing. So this it the text to focus on.
The other MAC addresses in the log file have been changed into: Other_Mac1, Other_Mac2, Other_Mac3, etc. etc.

yoursecondfilename.rsc
AP-log.txt

If changed the Accss List configuration to:
Screenshot 2020-10-26 at 08.38.18.png

Sending station leaving (8) : the client device is roaming on its own decision. That's OK, it's what we want.
Sending station leaving (3) : the AP has decided to disconnect the client.

https://aboutcher.co.uk/2012/07/linux-w ... son-codes/

Thanks for your feeedback, really appreciated as I'm stuck with this problem and many complaining users.

I've included the AP configuration and log file.

The MAC addresses have been changed by text. The "ipad_mac" is the device I'm using for testing. So this it the text to focus on.
The other MAC addresses in the log file have been changed into: Other_Mac1, Other_Mac2, Other_Mac3, etc. etc.

yoursecondfilename.rsc
AP-log.txt

If changed the Accss List configuration to:
Screenshot 2020-10-26 at 08.38.18.png

Sending station leaving (8) : the client device is roaming on its own decision. That's OK, it's what we want.
Sending station leaving (3) : the AP has decided to disconnect the client.

https://aboutcher.co.uk/2012/07/linux-w ... son-codes/

Thanks again, but why is this happening? Is it due to a misconfiguration of the AP? Or is it because I'm simply to far away from the AP and the signal strength is not good enough? And how can I improve this?

I also noticed the following configuration in the router. Could that be off influence of the behaviour I'm experiencing

Screenshot 2020-10-26 at 09.08.06.png

It's only valid for that WLAN interface. -75 dBm is only good if you have better AP signal around. After the "Allow Signal out of Range" time, the default setting for the WLAN will be used.

Based on your feedback, can I conclude the following:

1) Access List conditions is applicable for all WLAN interfaces?
2) Connect List is only for the selected/specified WLAN interface?

I probably doesn't make sense to have similar rules set at two different locations. What would be the advice? Either use the Access List for all WLAN's or create rules in Connect List for each individual WLAN interface, is that the correct way of doing it?

Oooops .... overlooked that is was "connect list" for -75 dB
Thought and explained as if it was "access list"

"Connect list" is only used when the MKT connects to another AP (as station, station bridge, station pseudobridge, WDS slave ..... etc) It is not used when another device connects to the MKT.

The access list is wlan specific if the WLAN is specified in the rule. I use WLAN specific rules for 2.4 and 5 GHz because my strategy is different for both bands.
With 2.4 GHz the focus is maximizing coverage (but losing lots of airtime on those weak and slow connections). With 5 GHz the focus is on high performance (but losing on coverage)
So the limits now are totally different. 2.4 GHz is at -86 dB (depends on available AP's per area), while 5 GHz is at -80 dB. (same AP's).
Currently doing daily monitoring to adjust the values (per AP). Would not hesitate to go for -90 dB and -76 dB as different settings.
Even the TXpower for 2.4 GHz is reduced by 7 dB, what is also part of the tuning. It lowers to chance for triggering clients to try a connection.
Also upping "basic rate" is another technique for avoiding weak signal trials.
What gives a bad experience is that someone is rejected by all AP's or even worse banned by all AP , when being in the area assumed covered.
Handheld devices have a fluctuating signal, so to be tolerant for that the "allowed out of range" timing is at least 30 sec. (depends on the AP density again and the need to kick sticky clients fast)

Tuning a system that must handle a random workload, when multiple parameters can be set that are not independent, is never easy. And tuning for zero faults is not the optimum targeted for.
Actually the optimum is different for every device type, and for every user and every use case. Expectations, even as they are not expressed in numbers, are moving targets.

You are braver than I Sir! I only play the switch game between two 5Gzh wlans (meaning two different APs) and not between a 2 and a 5 either on the same or different APs.

Mixing the bands, seems to work well. (Need additional feedback from that user, but they are used to contact me if something is not 100%)
The client device decides the connection. In the beginning between WLAN1 & WLAN2 (connect before disconnect) , at the end it was pushed a bit.(disconnect before connect)
Reason code (8) in https://aboutcher.co.uk/2012/07/linux-w ... son-codes/ , MKT and client mechanism unknown.

.
But is not always changing, when they are @home its steady
.

I recommend to not use access list, except if the harbor is small or really densly AP populated and at every location you have good signal!!!, for any kind of client...!
But as you already experience issues now (with one device only), you will experience exactly this with many new devices
(or have frustrated customers...)

Each device is different. You talk about an Ipad, that is 2x2 device and as such has better reception that 1x1 device.
If someone comes with a "cheap" consumer Wifi device his signal strength will for sure be less.

If you can not ensure that you have better than "-75" signal strength you will end up with many devices not connecting at all.
Covering a phone with something (in a case, cupboard or under towls etc) will reduce signal strength greatly.

--> In an open environment with "unknown devices" you can not know what the signal strength will be.
You need to test each and every device first to know the signal level...
What you want can only be done if you test ALL your clients and know what they do... (Or you are ok that some won't be able to connect...)

The good solution is not possible today with ROS! What would be needed is actually an access list entry that "allows access only after X seconds".
The idea would be:
- Allow on the AP -70 to +120, with 30 sec out of range (or what ever range makes sense depending on AP density)
- Allow device ONLY after 30secs if signal strength is -120 to -65 (which would mean the device can search around and see if it can find something better during the 30 seconds).
Ideally running this via capsman, so that a centrealized daemon knows that the client is able to connect to one of the AP or not, and if not gives them the authorization to conncet with low signal strength. Unfortunately this is science fiction for ROS today but would make a huge improvement to Wifi system performance...

Thanks for the feedback. It seems that this is really a tough topic. I though that I would arrange this quickly, but that is for sure not the case.

I've included a layout of the harbour, each red dot on the map is a AP. Mainly I'm using the wAP devices. At two locations I'm using the SXT devices. I'm covering many areas of the harbour but for sure not every spot. I'm at the end, far a way from the wAP AP and having these connection/signal strength problems.

As per your advice, I will remove the Access List configuration and see if that will improve the situation. As you explained and already assumed, this is an open environment with many users and many different devices. I cannot measure them all, I don't have the time and the motivation to measure each individual device. But that raises the next question, how can I improve the WIFI experience of the users? I get complains about a bad WIFI signal. Also there is a big difference inside and outside the boot.

Is there a best practise configuration for the wAP's? CAPSMAN has been mentioned a couple of times, I've no experience on CAPSMAN, but is this really going to help the WIFI experience? Or is this only for the maintenance and configuration of the AP's? All the AP's have wired connections.

I'm using the "AP Bridge" mode on each AP, is that the best mode? Should I use something else? Reasoning for the AP Bridge mode is the VLAN and the central management of DHCP.

Looking forward to other and more feedback on how to improve this WIFI network. Thanks.

Yes, but how to implement a weak signal connection attempt timer ? Connection attempts are "connectionless" like UDP.
Differentiated settings for 2.4GHz and 5 GHz is somewhat similar to the weak signal timer. You always get in 2.4 GHz, and will move up to 5 GHz if the signal is strong.
What if we have the same SSID twice on the same master WLAN but with different access-list settings ? Possible ??

The trigger for "banned" is probably yet another mechanism .... (seen from a RADIUS misconfig)

Looking forward to other and more feedback on how to improve this WIFI network. Thanks.

That's a more general question. Very interesting case. We will have to look at the whole RF spectrum around.
Your information is detailed but filtered, because it was focused on your connection problem, and on "Watersportvereniging Helius".
The screenshot with channels is filtered on "wsvh" , but the AP search by the client device shows strong "Lovis, Marieke, Marina ...." SSID's in the neighborhood.

Water is a RF signal absorber. Is the weak signal in the boot due to the water or the boot? (Polyester? Metal ? Wood ?) But is most cases it is the client device signal that is weak at the AP!
Many things to explore.
You did not mention the type of Mkt AP you are using.(antenna characteristic) , nor its power setting. (More TXpower will not help, better antenna gain does)

Let's see if we can help ....

Looking forward to other and more feedback on how to improve this WIFI network. Thanks.

That's a more general question. Very interesting case. We will have to look at the whole RF spectrum around.
Your information is detailed but filtered, because it was focused on your connection problem, and on "Watersportvereniging Helius".
The screenshot with channels is filtered on "wsvh" , but the AP search by the client device shows strong "Lovis, Marieke, Marina ...." SSID's in the neighborhood. As well as we have neighbourhood harbour having a WIFI signal/service as well.

Water is a RF signal absorber. Is the weak signal in the boot due to the water or the boot? (Polyester? Metal ? Wood ?) But is most cases it is the client device signal that is weak at the AP!
Many things to explore.
You did not mention the type of Mkt AP you are using.(antenna characteristic) , nor its power setting. (More TXpower will not help, better antenna gain does)

Let's see if we can help ....

You ar correct, I filtered that Wireless neighbourhood scan result on our own WIFI SSID. There ar for sure other WIFI networks around. The once you listed (Lovis, Marieke, etc) are hotspots on the various boots. That is another probleem. It becomes more and more populair to have a hotspot on the boot to receive the information like wind, speed, GPS, etc. on mobile devices. This is another disturbance factor. I'm not at the harbour at the moment, so cannot easily make another scan. Will try to collect some info remotely and post it here.

The devices I'm using are the wAP devices as the main AP's on the harbour. I've three SXT's installed as well.

OK. Don't worry, no hurry.
On the other hand don't forget you have 11 good scanners there in the air. (If not in use. Background scan exists, but looking with freq usage and Snooper will also be needed.)
Those stand alone AP's are hopefully not set to "auto" channel selection (and pick channel 3,4,8 or 9).

OK. Don't worry, no hurry.
On the other hand don't forget you have 11 good scanners there in the air. (If not in use. Background scan exists, but looking with freq usage and Snooper will also be needed.)
Those stand alone AP's are hopefully not set to "auto" channel selection (and pick channel 3,4,8 or 9).

Yes, I'm aware of the 11 good scanners, that is what I was planning to use remotely.
And yes, the radio channels are NOT set to auto, I've give each AP a different radio channel to prevent the overlapping of AP's close to each other.
Attached a scanning list (in PDF format). THere are a huge amount of WIFI's networks in the neighbourhood.
Maybe it can give a better picture of the situation in the harbour.

Suggestions for improvements are always welcome.

Are there differences in quality/experience of the different Wifi modes? I'm now using AP Bridge.

Hi, I was not referring to your radio's, but the others around. Anyone on another channel than your 2412,2437,2462 is creating adjacent channel interference
Domus, Thor, Marieke, WVHellevoetsluis, Glow-in-the-dark, PURO, Thommy, But all by all relatively clean (I have seen worse, even when visiting Sittard once :-) )

I think "AP bridge" is your only option, with wireless protocol 802.11 . Protocol Nstreme and NV2 would only speak to other Mikrotiks.
You can enable "WMM support" and disable "Bridge mode"
There is something very strange in RouterOS. "2GHz-onlyN" will enable the 1 Mbps basic rate, while the "2GHz-G/N" will have 6Mbps as basic rate. (Not what I expect. Expected 6Mbps only.) 1 Mbps will connect with a weaker signal, but is actually a "802.11b" rate.

Other question is where, at what height, did you place the AP's? Are they all wAP ac's ? Don't know how wifi hostile this environment is, but it's certainly not "free field".
Ship masts in stainless steel, aluminum ?

Other question is where, at what height, did you place the AP's? Are they all wAP ac's ? Don't know how wifi hostile this environment is, but it's certainly not "free field".
Ship masts in stainless steel, aluminum ?

Your picture is absolutely correct, that is the harbour. And indeed a lot of masts and the masts are hold up by steel cables. So there is a log of interferences.
The AP's are at about 2 to 2.20 meters high. On the jetty they are all wAP's and i've at the beginning of two jetties 3 SXT's (2.4Ghz) (1 SXT at 1 jetty and 2 SXT's at the 2nd jetty).

Not easy, not easy to estimate if not at the harbor.

That SXT2 (... 2.4GHz - SXTG2HnD! With it's powerful 60 degrees 2x2 MIMO 10dbi sector antenna ...) should give you a better range than the omnidirectional wAP ac (2dBi) ... 8 dBi difference (6 dB is double distance), if aligned correctly (some down tilt is needed) to avoid capturing noise from the "Roompot".
But the jetty's are 100 meter, and that's a lot to cover from one end to the other for a smartphone or tablet (typical 10 to 12 dBm only)
You know that the extra coverage is not coming from the extra TXpower at the SXT AP, but the increased receive sensitivity due to the antenna gain. (The antenna gain for the same EIRP will turn down the TXpower by 8dBm to comply with the 20 dBm EIRP for etsi/Europe/Netherlands anyway.)

Just some suggestions on what I would try ... just consider them , some might fit in your installation.

- as stated before: remove the access-list limits for now. (Or reduce them to below -90dBm)
- add 5 GHz to the offered wifi service. The wAP ac has it built in. It does not disturb the 2.4 GHz at all. It will reduce the airtime load on the 2.4 GHz (improving the CCQ for most units). Use the same SSID and the same network. The client transition from 2.4 to 5GHz works very well. Most devices in a random population are 5 GHz capable (among my 100 users I have seen 80% using 5 GHz). The devices prefer the 5 GHz without pushing them. And it is in addition to the 2.4 GHz, so only an improvement.
- Check what to expect from a wAP ac as useful coverage. Some say 30 meter in free field. So the SXT could be 80 meter range. (Some say more, up to 40 meter, but you have a water surface that reduces the range) Interference is 4 times the usable range. You need wifi in the boats, and that would need an extra 10 dBm ??. To improve the coverage consider using more sector antenna's with down tilt. (Devices like the new mANTbox 52 15s. High antenna gain is important for receiving the client device). Without down tilt you shoot over the heads, and AP's with spherical shaped spectra, most energy gets lost and you capture noise/interference from all directions. They are fine in the mid among the boats, not at the edges. And 3 equal 120° sector antenna with down tilt is what you see at those large masts, not omnidirectionals. Mikrotik has no electronic down tilt in the Omnitik.

Thanks for the feedback. Only way out seems to add more AP's in the harbour to get a better coverage.
I will do some more experiments.
I'm also installing and testing the CAPSMAN so that it becomes easier to make config changes on the all the AP's 

rgroothuis,
I would not make the effort in 2020 to install in such complex environment a 2.4Ghz only system.
To me dual band would make more sense here. Remember you have only 3 non overlapping channels in 2.4G
which are shared among everybody!!! (even the folks sharing Wifi via their phone...).

rgroothuis,
I would not make the effort in 2020 to install in such complex environment a 2.4Ghz only system.
To me dual band would make more sense here. Remember you have only 3 non overlapping channels in 2.4G
which are shared among everybody!!! (even the folks sharing Wifi via their phone...).

Correct, I've 5Ghz on the wAP's activated as well. The SXT devices are only 2.4Ghz. I purchased them before the wAP was available. THe wAP's installed are all enabled with 2.4 and 5Ghz.

Just a detail ... if you install more sector antenna point them from the end of the jetty to the quay.
For omnidirectionals there is also the brand new Netmetal ac2 (HGO antenna has 6dBi or use even sector antenna)

Just my two cents.

Only way as i can see is deploying more APs, a lot more... As members are mentioned before, WiFi is a two way street as all networks and mobile devices, like phones, have low power antenas. I they can hear AP that doesn'y mean that AP hears them. Setup one test AP that is mobile and measure signal, I wildly guess, that you won't be able to cover more that 4-6 boats. Can you give us measurements? How long and wide is one boat? How far from already deployed APs you can still connect whit laptop and phone? For example I set my APS TX power to 15dbm (to match mobile devices, +/-) and I know that whit hap ac2 I cant get no more that 8m good WiFi signal, 6m more realistic. (-70dbm, 5ghz, minimal data rates 12-24mbps) You requirements most likely won't be that strict as mine and -75dbm whit phy 6mbps will be fine, so you will get more coverage. So test and make a desition - what will be acceptable to you and your clients? Phone users will complain more, thats for sure.

Finally found the solution. :-) There was an incorrect address list assigned to the WIFI interface on the AP. That caused the fact that I could make a WIFI connection but I didn't get an IP address. When the laptop doesn't get a IP address it would try to connect to another AP (with the same SSID). But that signal is weaker and the laptop would connect back again to the stronger signal. This would go on and on and...... I'm happy that this is now resolved, I was even able to install CAPSMANN on all the AP's to have better and easy management of the AP's.