@jaredbusch said in EdgeSwitch firmware 1.7.4.5075842 released: Adding a VLAN is a snap. It was already trivial!

@bbigford said in Does any one have a EdgeRouter 4 online and can test L2TP: Any insight on maybe why that worked? I've had issues with the default group on another manufacturer, but I wouldn't think 14 was default. It worked prior to changing to DH 14 on my iPhone. I had to add a proposal with DH 14 for Windows 10 to work.

@dbeato said in UNMS 0.12 rc2 released yesterday: @bnrstnr said in UNMS 0.12 rc2 released yesterday: DHCP stuff being in there for the EdgeRouter devices, but I also don't see it in the added features list. Regardless, it's pretty useful for me. It was there before. Yes, it has been there since at least version 0.10.0

Wow! Interesting to follow up.

@jaredbusch said in ERL and Smart Queue throughput: If the CPU was not limiting things, the unit should be pull 100Mbps The Smart Queue is set to 100. Of course, that is what I was referring.

@360col said in schedule time per client not possible: Opps this was meant as a reply to the Unifi Schedule thread. No idea why it became a separate topic Can someone fix up this or close this thread. Thanks. Probably because you tried posting it as below:

@mike-davis said in Unifi Time Schedule: Ah, maybe the best approach would be to have two SSIDs. One on a schedule and one on all the time. Then only allow devices you want to connect to the all on SSID. This is what I have done in the past for myself and my friends/family. I setup a SSID for parents and then sometimes a SSID for each child. That way the parent can turn off the internet for one child and not bother the other children. Of course I always think that the punishment imposed by the children on other children for everyone losing internet because of the actions for one is a great way to get them to behave.

I think I have it figured out.. when I'm back on that network I'll get a screen shot. Hope to spend the afternoon testing it, have a few other pieces of gear to setup for it.

@mattbagan said in Looking for stock of the EdgeRouter 4: @JaredBusch ubnt has them in their store now https://store.ubnt.com/collections/routing-switching/products/edgerouter-4 I ended up purchasing from DoubleRadius.

@dbeato said in Passing traffic between a remote access VPN and Site-to-site VPN on an Edge Router Lite: @dashrender said in Passing traffic between a remote access VPN and Site-to-site VPN on an Edge Router Lite: @dbeato said in Passing traffic between a remote access VPN and Site-to-site VPN on an Edge Router Lite: @eddiejennings said in Passing traffic between a remote access VPN and Site-to-site VPN on an Edge Router Lite: Thanks to @Dashrender for the assist. It looks like the problem was authentication. I authenticated to the VPN using domain\username rather than using the User Principal Name. Doing the latter allowed me to reach DFS shares. Woops, that's crazy but definitely there is an issue with DNS huh? If the user cannot login with UPN there is an issue with DNS.... As you should be able to use domain.com. User can login with UPN. They were using the old domain\username method rather than UPN, which apparently caused problems with accessing stuff via the DFS namespace.

@FATeknollogee You've said that the bosses want the networks to be separate. You've also said that company B provides a service for company A akin to B providing email services to A, so A needs access to B's network for that single service. All that said - what is the goal in splitting the networks? Why do it? If you don't know why the bosses want this - ask them. Let's not worry about the how of splitting yet allowing things to continue to work, let's work on the why first - because the helps lead to the correct solution for the goal.

@jaredbusch I have it up and running. (DNS) Even my guest WIFI on a VLan is now getting DHCP addresses. Everything is working great now.

@dashrender said in Ubiquiti publicly rolls out UNMS Beta: @scottalanmiller said in Ubiquiti publicly rolls out UNMS Beta: @dashrender said in Ubiquiti publicly rolls out UNMS Beta: @scottalanmiller said in Ubiquiti publicly rolls out UNMS Beta: @dashrender said in Ubiquiti publicly rolls out UNMS Beta: @scottalanmiller said in Ubiquiti publicly rolls out UNMS Beta: @dashrender said in Ubiquiti publicly rolls out UNMS Beta: @scottalanmiller said in Ubiquiti publicly rolls out UNMS Beta: @dashrender said in Ubiquiti publicly rolls out UNMS Beta: @scottalanmiller said in Ubiquiti publicly rolls out UNMS Beta: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_release_life_cycle Beta literally means it's not reached candidacy for release yet. RC is still not released, but is what they might consider for release once tested. Notice Beta is in the middle of the "non-released" period. These are as the terms have always been used, even going back to the early 1980s and, I assume, long before that. Release being such a structured term that it is nearly impossible to define released without using the term released itself. While I'm sure this has no baring in reality - for me release is a point but the public can get support for the thing. That's not quite accurate. There is no reason that something unreleased can't offer support. How else do you really do your testing, get feedback, and so forth? It's an expectation that anything that the public can get would get some amount of support most likely, because otherwise, what is the purpose of the public nature of the testing? Perhaps I should have added the words "expect to" to the support portion. As you said with the other thread, There should be no expectation of support for the product that was still in beta. So, here is a question then, does Microsoft ever release software? Because nothing that MS makes comes with support. What about Debian Linux, is it ever released? Expect <> free. But free software has all the same release guidelines as commercial software. And MS products aren't normally free. Again - what does cost have to do with anything? As I also said - you'd all probably disagree with me. Because you mentioned it in the post I quoted. Please highlight the part where I mentioned costs. Same thing I quoted and you responded to.

ERL with an AC Lite AP at home as well as many clients. Zero issues.

@marcinozga said in Ubiquiti - piss poor customer service: @dashrender said in Ubiquiti - piss poor customer service: @marcinozga said in Ubiquiti - piss poor customer service: @scottalanmiller said in Ubiquiti - piss poor customer service: You are missing that it's not Ubiquiti causing the problem here. We don't know why different places are listing these products, what we do know is that according to Ubiquiti, they are early release and not eligible for resale. Do you really think B&H would be selling product that's not officially available? you didn't buy it from B&H, you got it from NewEgg, So I really wonder, is B&H (no clue who they even are - never heard of them before) just has a page up for pre-sales. Don't really know. Everything on Ubiquiti's site points that the product is still in beta. I had a quick look at some products here, and only Aircube seems listed on products page. No XG units, no application server, no PRO camera, no application server. If Aircube is still beta, it should be clearly marked as such on main product page, not in forums that are inaccessible without applying for early access. I agree that it is not as obvious as might be useful. But it is important to understand that this is a universal standard to have products that are not released yet on product pages as if they are released. You can never tell, with any product or any vendor, the status of release in this way. Example Asus - their entire website is advertising products that have not released yet. You can't tell even when year products will release. I don't like it either, it's a confusing way to let people know about products, but this is how everything works. Unless it explicitly tells you that it has released, you have to find out somewhere else. UBNT at least does have the info, vendors like Asus don't have it at all and leave you guessing until the product line is done and shut down. Sometimes you can never figure out if it ever released at all.

@scottalanmiller said in Home Network Setup: @jmoore said in Home Network Setup: @scottalanmiller said in Home Network Setup: @dashrender said in Home Network Setup: The whole crux of my ask was - the desire to buy as few Windows Server CALs as possible. This is unrelated to the question asked, though. you know i have noticed you and dash really communicate differently. not good or bad, just different. then you both have trouble understanding the other. from the many threads i have read with you two, that is the common theme i have seen. I'd assume part of it is that I am highly literal. That tends to be a root of many communications issues for me in general. yeah i think your right you are literal. i had to adjust my communication with you. that was my fault though, i am used to having to be so unliteral with my users because i would lose them that i got into that bad habit lol. i know for me, i was not explaining my thoughts in a well laid out way and that made me harder to understand and threw you off. did i do better that time?

@storageninja I will have to look into your strategy as well!

@dustinb3403 Its a worth a try. The worse they could say is no. Best is that it could save you a couple bucks a month.

@jaredbusch said in Ubiquity new feature for AP that looks sweet.: @travisdh1 said in Ubiquity new feature for AP that looks sweet.: @scottalanmiller said in Ubiquity new feature for AP that looks sweet.: Added tags Bother, phone didn't cooperate with those then You have to have a topic selected prior to adding tags to make them stick. Easy for me to miss on the small screen

@jaredbusch said in Trying the UNMS built in updater: refreshed the browser and it shows 0.9.2 so the updater stalled visibly, but did finish. Just like on prom night. . . Youtube Video

@travisdh1 said in Ubiquiti Frontrow: @scottalanmiller said in Ubiquiti Frontrow: @travisdh1 said in Ubiquiti Frontrow: @scottalanmiller said in Ubiquiti Frontrow: @travisdh1 said in Ubiquiti Frontrow: I NEEDED this around 2 months back For MangoCon videos? No, for the things that happened at work that should have been recorded. That's how you get yourself beaten. They actually got security camera footage of a government official shoving an employee. Harder to beat up and intimidate a mounted camera in the corner.

@eddiejennings said in Just need a basic Switch - to act as a Hub: @scottalanmiller said in Just need a basic Switch - to act as a Hub: @dashrender said in Just need a basic Switch - to act as a Hub: @eddiejennings said in Just need a basic Switch - to act as a Hub: @dashrender said in Just need a basic Switch - to act as a Hub: @coliver said in Just need a basic Switch - to act as a Hub: @dustinb3403 said in Just need a basic Switch - to act as a Hub: @fateknollogee said in Just need a basic Switch - to act as a Hub: @DustinB3403 Why are you calling it a "hub"? Because there is no switching taking place. The devices simply ask for a dhcp address, and go. All switches are hubs, so a basic unmanaged switch. Wtf are you talking about? My guess - a confusion between switching and routing. Probably wants a switch, but is calling it a hub, not realizing that a hub is a specific thing that sends all traffic out all ports (layer 1). In this case, either would probably work, but hubs are limited to 10/100,... That's true, the GBit standard prohibits hubs. @QuixoticJeremy Are you bored again? We need a hub that can get around Ethernet standards and pass traffic at gigabit speeds! Ha, ha ha ha, ha.... pass. lol

@storageninja said in Ubiquiti Security Gateway: Agent based network abstraction is an interesting alternative to traditional VPN. It's still traditional VPN, though. Other than automating the configuration, it's all stuff you could have done with OpenVPN or whatever decades ago. It's nice that it auto-configures and it is a great product (or was, appears mostly abandoned now) but it's not an alternative or new VPN, it's just a mesh VPN setup.

@hobbit666 said in How to install the Ubiquiti UNMS on Debian 9.1: Haven't got enough EdgeSwitch out there yet to need central management Those are not in yet anyway. Soon

Also take a look at this KB https://help.ubnt.com/hc/en-us/articles/115002869188-UniFi-Migrating-Sites-with-Site-Export-Wizard

@jaredbusch said in Comparing Ubiquiti EdgeRouter and Cisco ASA PPS Performance and Cost: @nashbrydges said in Comparing Ubiquiti EdgeRouter and Cisco ASA PPS Performance and Cost: @jaredbusch said in Comparing Ubiquiti EdgeRouter and Cisco ASA PPS Performance and Cost: @nashbrydges said in Comparing Ubiquiti EdgeRouter and Cisco ASA PPS Performance and Cost: @brandon220 said in Comparing Ubiquiti EdgeRouter and Cisco ASA PPS Performance and Cost: I've been using an ERL at home for a while and have them deployed at several business. Zero complaints and I recommend them all the time. I wish I could use it at home. I'm on Bell Canada ftth and they use a different vlan for iptv and internet. All of the online guides I've seen haven't been able to get me to use my ERL and Bell won't give up which VLANs they use. No one hasd figured this information out yet? Sadly not yet, at least not that my Google-fu has allowed me to find. I am a bit amazed because it should only take a mirrored switch port and wireshark to find VLAN tags. This was my thinking as I was reading the posts. This is /should be pretty easy to figure out.

@dustinb3403 said in Hardware differences - what makes one less than enterprise: @scottalanmiller said in Hardware differences - what makes one less than enterprise: @dustinb3403 said in Hardware differences - what makes one less than enterprise: @scottalanmiller said in Hardware differences - what makes one less than enterprise: @jaredbusch said in Hardware differences - what makes one less than enterprise: @scottalanmiller said in Hardware differences - what makes one less than enterprise: @jaredbusch said in Hardware differences - what makes one less than enterprise: @scottalanmiller said in [Hardware differences - what makes one less than enterprise] The software. The hardware is about equal, sort of. But a $95 Ubiquiti is faster than a $3,000 CIsco. So the hardware still matters. Cisco at $3,000 is "Maybe able to handle your house." Prove this. Don't bullshit or theorize. Prove it. Get a unit and run tests or stopping stating it like a fact and predicate these statements with "in my opinion" and such. Granted I'll never buy Cisco in the SMB when Ubiquiti exists for the cost and performance that it currently exists with. But none of that invalidates the quality or functionality of Cisco hardware and software. Cost has nothing to do with that. I'm not the one making the claim, it's based off of measured PPS between the two. You are the one always making the claim and have never linked to source material to back up your claims. I've never made the claim. I've repeated Ubiquiti's performance measurements. It's nothing to do with me. I just remember the number and repeat it as it is a critical guideline for understanding where Ubiquiti falls within the Cisco product range. When people are talking $10K Ciscos, we can't talk Ubiquiti, it just doesn't make sense. But at $3K and below, I've never had anyone come up with any value proposition to Cisco gear considering that Ubiquiti is measured at better throughput until that price point. Granted, Ubiquiti did the study, but Cisco has not disputed it or claimed any other performance of which I am aware. If you're repeating it, find the source and post a link, FFS. I want to believe a lot of what you say, but I agree with @jaredbusch here. It comes out like another scott-ism. It only sounds that way because you think I don't have sources for all of my stuff. You can always go look up Cisco performance, too, and see what it is. But you're the person spouting something off as a fact, so provide the source! This is correct, it is not our job to do research when you are the one claiming a fact. It is the reader's job to verify, but the reader cannot do that without the initial facts. Yes, I know you already answered. Just closing my part of the conversation.

@scottalanmiller said in Wanting to Dual boot to test KVM.. Where do i begin?: Has this project been supplanted by the Fedora on the old desktop project? Yes sir

@bigbear said in Ubiquiti UNMS - First impressions: @marcinozga said in Ubiquiti UNMS - First impressions: It doesn't support Toughswitches yet, no support for NVR or cameras, no support for Mfi devices. I wish it would replace Unifi controller too. At the moment it only picked up 2 nano stations, so just too limited for me. Perhaps in the future they add additional devices, firmware upgrades alone across the board would be huge. Isnt mFi pretty much dead? Really sucks too but I think on ubnt forums the pressed and got leadership to admit they abandoned it in the vine... I believe that is correct. It was in one of the threads about the ancient vulnerability in them not getting patched or something like that.

@JaredBusch not necessarily abnormal but surely a mix of 3 independent repos.