Hi,

i am playing around with CAPsMAN, because i'm a fan of configuration management.

I have seen in some article that CAPsMAN v1 is not compatible with CAPsMAN v2 and vice versa. But how do i know which version i have?

This is my scenario:

Name: Core
Model: CRS328-24P-4S+ (arm)

Name: Cave
Model: hAP ax³ (arm64)

Name: Office
Model: hAP ax³ (arm64)

Name: Living
Model: hAP (mipsbe)


The `core` shall do the CAPsMAN for `cave`, `office` and `living`. For testing i started with the CAPsMAN configuration for `living` using "Wireless -> CAPsMAN" in the WinBox UI. Somehow i make it work, even with multiple SSIDs. Btw i got a bit confused and first i configured the wifi interfaces with it's vlans on the `living` switch instead of the `core`switch. After `living` got all my four WIFIs working as intended, i also tried to setup CAPs on `cave`. Which wasn't working, so i tried then setting up CAPsMAN on the `core` via the "WiFi" menu in WinBox and after that `cave` appeared in that list of "Remote CAP".

So i guess that one of them "WiFi" or "Wireless -> CAPsMAN" is CAPsMAN v1 and the other is CAPsMAN v2. Which is what?

And a suggestions: probably it would be nice to name the CAPsMAN with v1 or v2 in the UI in order to make it more transparent what we are dealing with.

Thank you,
snooops

There is no "CAPsMAN 2", technically "Wireless" CAPsMAN already is "CAPsMAN 2", since it is not the first iteration of CAPsMAN, but we advise against using numbers when referring to both CAPsMAN types.

Wireless CAPsMAN, https://help.mikrotik.com/docs/pages/vi ... Id=1409149
Wifi CAPsMAN.https://help.mikrotik.com/docs/display/ ... iFiCAPsMAN

Wifi CAPsMAN comes with system package in the latest RouterOS v7 releases. Wireless CAPsMAN requires wireless package to be installed.
Both CAPsMAN can be used at the same time on same device if required, but there are some caveats, please see: https://help.mikrotik.com/docs/display/ROS/Wireless
Generally, Wifi CAPsMAN is meant for 802.11ax devices, and devices that are compatible with wifi-qcom-ac package if you install it.
Wireless CAPsMAN is for controlling CAPs that use Wireless package.

You must be joking.
Do you really expect Mikrotik to suddenly break their years long tradition of naming things in the most confusing manner possible?
No chance.

There is a thread about the Capsman matter here:
viewtopic.php?p=1062299
that besides many interesting facts, links to here:
viewtopic.php?t=202578
where the matter is (supposedly) cleared (please read clear as "clear as mud").

Capsman (the one you call v1 that will be called either old capsman or legacy capasman or capsman) is the one that uses /interface/wireless.
Capsman (the one you call v2 that will be called either new capsman or next generation capsman or capsman) is the one that uses /interface/wifi.

From what you write, it seems like the haP has v1 and the Ax's have v2.

Generally, Wifi CAPsMAN is meant for 802.11ax devices, and devices that are compatible with wifi-qcom-ac package if you install it.
Wireless CAPsMAN is for controlling CAPs that use Wireless package.

Thank you for your quick response. Am i right that my `living` device is not compatible with wifi-qcom-ac because there is no package for it available? So if i want to use CAPsMAN in a proper way for roaming requirements, i should use Wireless CAPsMAN or replace the `living` device with something that is wifi-qcom-ac compatible, right?

"The `core` shall do the CAPsMAN for `cave`, `office` and `living`. For testing i started with the CAPsMAN configuration for `living` using "Wireless -> CAPsMAN" in the WinBox UI."
If core is CRS328, then it can act as CAPsMAN for all involved devices, since Wifi CAPsMAN comes with base package, you just have to install Wireless package on it as well, for Wireless CAPsMAN - to allow the control of "Living" - hAP.
Yes, it would be best to replace "living" with wifi-qcom-ac compatible device, or wifi-qcom compatible device - device with 802.11ax interfaces.
hAP is not full model name though, if the hAP in question is hAP ac^2 or hAP ac^3, then it already supports the wifi-qcom-ac package.

Important thing to note with the wifi-qcom-ac package is the following, there are differences in wifi-qcom and wifi-qcom-ac vlan configuration, please see:
https://help.mikrotik.com/docs/display/ ... ionexample:
"CAPs using "wifi-qcom" package can get "vlan-id" via Datapath from CAPsMAN, CAPs using "wifi-qcom-ac" package will need to use the configuration provided at the end of this example."

The device in `living` is a RB951Ui-2nD.

In that case, yes, it only supports the wireless package.

You must be joking.
Do you really expect Mikrotik to suddenly break their years long tradition of naming things in the most confusing manner possible?
No chance.

Thanks for making me smile as my head is exploding looking at new CAPsMAN, cAP ac and qcom-ac.

@Guntis thanks for sharing all that info.

Put this way, CAPsMAN in v7 is double trouble.
Probably you need to make it more simple (with some other vendors that can be done with 2 to 3 clicks).

Me personality, im using CAPsMAN a lot (v6).

I'm not even thinking to move to v7.

btw- on the v7 where is the option local forwarding?

btw- on the v7 where is the option local forwarding?

Gone.
You can work around that problem using some nifty EOIP setup or so but natively it's not there anymore.

thanks @holvoetn, good to know that

Correction (I may have written too fast):
local forwarding is the default and only option.
Capsman forwarding is gone. But that can be worked around if you want ...

Put this way, CAPsMAN in v7 is double trouble.

Having put off trying to get it working, my initial reaction is I agree. In old CAPsMAN, it wasn't too bad on the access points. Sure, not as easy for SOHO as Unifi but workable. Mikrotik still loose sales though due to the perceived difficulty of use. This is a shame when it appears to be mainly a software issue and not hardware.

Probably you need to make it more simple (with some other vendors that can be done with 2 to 3 clicks).

I've tried to make that point more than once with the comparison with Unifi. Sure, the later isn't perfect but for the majority of cases in SOHO, it's clearly an easier solution both for clients and technical. However, I also recognise that if Mikrotik don't see this as their market, then it's their bat and their ball - so they can do what they like. But once again, it's the management software, not the hardware that's the issue.

The disappointment is that most of us appear to want Mikrotik to succeed as a company as we understand how good (most) of the hardware is*. This whole v6 vs v7 vs Wifiwave2 vs Wi-Fi vs wireless vs ac vs ax vs etc is a nightmare. I've worked in IT for 45 years, maybe I'm just getting too old but it's hard work.

I'm not even thinking to move to v7.

Technically it's not specifically an issue with v6 versus v7. You can have old CAPsMAN in v7 alongside new CAPsMAN. The split is more around the Wi-Fi drivers isn't it? See, we're even confused about what to call it

Seriously though, if I'm having to spend hours & hours getting all this sorted compared to 30 minutes with a Unifi setup, you know which way I'm going to be tempted to go in future? There is an important point here.

[*] first experience of wAP ac this week, what a nice bit of kit!