After spending about few weeks tweaking, tried countless methods just for improving roaming experience, I give up.

They just don't designed to work together, the roaming experience is so bad no matter how I try, AP bridge/Mesh with same channel/CAPsMAN/AP bridge with disable RSTP/ enable PMKID..... you name it, they just don't work, and MikroTik guys just keep telling us they got nothing to do with roaming, then why other vendors can do? For example, just setup two units as AP bridge normally and let your mobile to do the roaming, my phone can roam successfully with any home routers/AP (Asus, TP-Link, Netgear, Huawei, Youhua.... mix and match), but with hAP AC2 + cAP AC, my phone will drop 8~10pings and end up connection dropped and establish new connection to nearest AP, how could this happened? Those home routers/AP has no k/v/r supported too, they don't even know each other, why they can but MikroTik cannot?

Disable RSTP? It improved my roaming, my phone will now connect to the nearest AP with just 1 or 2 pings drop, sound nice ya? But soon I found my phone connection will hangs about 10 seconds after roaming, every time!

CAPsMAN? Yes it helped in my roaming experience but still 3~4pings dropped, and significantly slow my throughput, my download speed will capped at max 370mbps and become unstable, sometimes 120mbps, sometimes 200mbps, sometimes 70mbps. Tried many firmware version including beta version, nothing helps.

Download test fails me too, they gonna take few seconds to reach max speed like an old man climbing hill, 100~180~220~170~370~430 then finally 470, and most of the time will stuck at 300~350, sometimes even give me 220+ only.

Now I replace them with a cheap cheap TP-Link Deco M4 (look at the price) and all the problems gone, max speed 520mbps, band steering, k/v/r supported, roaming flawlessly with almost no ping drop, reach max download speed within a second, I did some stress test with all the devices in my house, about 16 of it, some do transfer file from NAS/youtube 4k streaming/speedtest/ping test at the same time, they performs even better than hAP+cAP, the only advantage of business class loses to the cheap TP-Link too, funny.

I bought this 2 units is for improve my network, but it only gets me headache.

Do you want to let us know with this post that you have found the right brand of wireless networking devices for you?
This is CapsMan with а few of cAP ac with connected and powered by them mAP Lites. Same SSID, roaming, shaper with QOS etc...no packet loss , just no problems !!!

For sure CAPsMAN can do roaming, but how about the experience of it? Video call hangs for 2~4 seconds during roaming and total throughput is low, I dunno why it will slow the things down as I monitored the CPU usage and nothing special, CPU is just about 10% (1 core 50%+-), I have really no ideal what causes the download speed down from 470mbps to 360mbps.

Please don't get me wrong, I'm still using hAP AC2 as my main router and I think it's the best router for me, really happy with it, but just the wireless, even now I'm done with it I will surely keep the cAP AC for future, maybe they fixed all the problems (MAYBE), or else I will use it as a router with some APs and disable the wireless.

i have seen in some situations, mikrotik bridge do not allow for MAC adress to jump from one bridge interface to another quickly, that's the only issue with roaming i have seen

even without that bridge issue of course you have a brief interruption in communications, i think that is normal for consumer applications and equipment

I hope in new ROSv7 have a lot of improvements, optimization and other protocol aviability in wireless part ! The Roaming works well, but only for reconnecting to device with strongest signal like 802.11k !

Roaming is always tricky to get right, as it was not envisioned in the original WiFi standard and has later been bolted on, but certainly MikroTik is not the best starting point as it lacks even basic support for roaming. In the MikroTik world, roaming is still "up to the client to do" and this leads to all kinds of problems, especially when you are trying to carpet an area with WiFi coverage.

In the MikroTik world, roaming is still "up to the client to do" and this leads to all kinds of problems, especially when you are trying to carpet an area with WiFi coverage.

Which unfortunately usually puts you in a place where you have to specify the correct kit for the job.

Indeed. Seeing that the cAP AC is their high-end ceiling access point clearly shows they are not interested in that market.

I hope in new ROSv7 have a lot of improvements, optimization and other protocol aviability in wireless part ! The Roaming works well, but only for reconnecting to device with strongest signal like 802.11k !

Lol, 802.11ax is on the way, and Mk still has this buggy non-certified mess instead 802.11ac. They don’t even think about ros 7, I won’t even surprise if company is in bad financial situation due to lost EU contracts....

Please take your trolling nonsense elsewhere.

They don’t even think about ros 7,

RouterOS 7 Beta is available for download: viewforum.php?f=1

In the MikroTik world, roaming is still "up to the client to do"

In the whole world with every AP vendor and every client device, roaming is ALWAYS "up to the client".

To clarify that - the client always makes the decision based on information it has learnt from the RF environment around it AND also from any additional information provided by APs they are connected to that support additional 802.11 standards such as 802.11k/r/v etc.

An AP can be configured with access list rules to disconnect a client earlier than they expected to encourage them to roam early but there is nothing to stop that client then instantly trying to re-associate back to the same identical AP again, then being kicked off again until after many many seconds later, the 'stupid' client software eventually choosing for themselves they want to roam elsewhere.

So yeah sadly, it's always up to the client. It's not just a "MikroTik thing".

In the MikroTik world, roaming is still "up to the client to do"

In the whole world with every AP vendor and every client device, roaming is ALWAYS "up to the client".

No, with the more expensive systems that do "seamless roaming" it is the AP/controller that decides where the client is served.
Of course that system also has some disadvantages and also the systems in the price segment where MikroTik operates do not offer this (AFAIK).

No, with the more expensive systems that do "seamless roaming" it is the AP/controller that decides where the client is served.

What you are referring to here is technically not a roaming, because in this case clients do not really roam, but are rather constantly talking to a single huge AP with spatially distributed radio elements. This approach clearly has advantages, but those come at a cost.

WOW! Sounds like a lot of folks are stuck in Wifi 4 (Wifi 6 was just announced by WFA this Monday)!

Wifi can do roaming, seamlessly with the phones which are in the market since 2-3 years!
Its offered by couple of retail MESH solutions which work well, and is becoming part of EasyMesh
standardization to be able to use CAP from one vendor and an extender form another one (at least that is the theory).

Those who don't believe it, please try those out. Those who know it, and tested it, are indeed highly frustrated
with the Wifi limitations of Mikrotik right now. CAPSMan is a (very good) provisioning tool but nothing really
for smart Wifi.

The solution might be the just announced "Audience" product, which I hope offers MESH/roamin. Maybe
Mikrotik offers from here onward more functions in ROS around this.
Only drawback, with 160-180 euro per device (you need two of them), you end up at exactly the same cost as the retail products.

WeWiNet, my personal suggestion is to step back from the marketing language and read the above posters, they are very knowledgeable people and can enlighten you on how these protocols actually work (or don't). I trust them and highly recommend you to pay more attention to what they say.

What you are referring to here is technically not a roaming, because in this case clients do not really roam, but are rather constantly talking to a single huge AP with spatially distributed radio elements. This approach clearly has advantages, but those come at a cost.

Yes, it is clear to me that it operates at layer 1 instead of layer 2 and that it means that all your APs are mostly sharing the same radio bandwidth.
But it solves the problem of roaming, especially the decision-making process in the client that tends to hold on to the latest connected AP until it loses the connection, then connects to another AP.

With the proper fast roaming support that transition can be faster than without it, but the issue of sub-optimal radio coverage just after you have moved remains until the client detects it. And the seamless roaming solution does not suffer from that.

It is comparable to the co-channel diversity amateur repeaters that I have worked on: seamless connectivity over a large area, but only a single talking channel.

RouterOS 7 uses Linux Kernel 4.14.131. Doesn´t this one provide e.g. native 802.11r/k support with IPQ4018/IPQ4019 based chipsets? So, the problem wit hAP ac2 + cAP ac could be automatically be resolved...?

anuser, no matter what the kernel is capable of, most programs and drivers are made in-house.

... most programs and drivers are made in-house.

I think this is what makes more and more members of this forum lament on. Regarding bugs and missing features.
Mikrotik decided to use OpenSource for the bootloader and the kernel at least (NTP? OpenVPN?). But most drivers and protocols are obviously developed in house. While other vendors use hardware manufacture's drivers and/or OpenSource software. This later aproach has a much bigger number of users, testers and developers behind it. So bugs could be find quicker and new features developed faster. Mikrotik seems to be lagging behind, e.g. 802.11v/k/r, Let's Encrypt, ... you name it.

If you just want to sell more hardware, maybe open up the bootloader and (actively) support installing OpenWRT (and the like) on your RouterBoards.

I think this is what makes more and more members of this forum lament on. Regarding bugs and missing features.
Mikrotik decided to use OpenSource for the bootloader and the kernel at least (NTP? OpenVPN?). But most drivers and protocols are obviously developed in house. While other vendors use hardware manufacture's drivers and/or OpenSource software. This later aproach has a much bigger number of users, testers and developers behind it. So bugs could be find quicker and new features developed faster. Mikrotik seems to be lagging behind, e.g. 802.11v/k/r, Let's Encrypt, ... you name it.

If you just want to sell more hardware, maybe open up the bootloader and (actively) support installing OpenWRT (and the like) on your RouterBoards.

Firstly, I'd rather mikrotik concentrate on what they do really well with the hardware and software on the routerboards rather than try and "open up" the platform. I don't think it needs it and it would just create a support headache for them. If you want an OpenWRT box then buy one and not a mikrotik router.

Also creating the drivers in house means that they can get the best from the hardware and have control of the whole unit. Otherwise they'd be at the mercy of third parties to update drivers if problems/exploits are found and that has the potential to not to happen for other than the new hardware. I want the knowledge that if an exploit/issue is found then I can put the latest RouterOS (once the fix is confirmed in it from the changelogs) onto any routerboard I own and the problem is fixed and not waiting on a third party to provide a driver update as well at some unknown point in the future.

No, with the more expensive systems that do "seamless roaming" it is the AP/controller that decides where the client is served.
Of course that system also has some disadvantages and also the systems in the price segment where MikroTik operates do not offer this (AFAIK).

I believe you are referring to Single Channel Architecture from what was called 'Meru' now Fortinet. That is a whole new ball game and is not controlling roaming between APs. The difference with SCA is that there is NO roaming on the part of the client as there is only one BSSID and therefore with only one BSSID the client has no need to roam as they believe they are always connected to the same device. Fortinet SCA also introduced virtual cells, where they allow multiple BSSIDs on multiple channels, in which case even with this system, the client decides when to roam between virtual cells. Not the AP or the controller, the client.

WOW! Sounds like a lot of folks are stuck in Wifi 4 (Wifi 6 was just announced by WFA this Monday)!

Wifi can do roaming, seamlessly with the phones which are in the market since 2-3 years!
Its offered by couple of retail MESH solutions which work well, and is becoming part of EasyMesh
standardization to be able to use CAP from one vendor and an extender form another one (at least that is the theory).

Shame that sales departments sell products not engineers.
The client devices make the decision to roam on every meshed network product, not the AP, regardless of what the marketing guys want you to believe. The only decision an AP, or a Meshed set of APs can ever do is inform the client with data about the environment that the client may not have been able to determine for itself. E.g. how many clients are connected to an AP, how occupied an AP is, what other APs there are nearby and all of that data can then be passed to the client via additional standards such as 802.11k/r/v. Once the client has received that data, IT then decides where to roam to.
To put it another way, the AP can suggest ideas to the connected device, inform the client about what the best thing is to do. But if the client wants to act stupid and do something different, that's up the client device. The AP cannot force it where to roam to. Regardless of the clever wording used by their marketing department to suggest or claim otherwise.

There’s been a lot of technical logics been discussing, it seems like MikroTik is doing the right way, but the only result is : BAD.

As an end users, we only care about the result, no matter how high end or how deep you can go for to explain it, we just care about the result. If MikroTik is the only AP manufacturer in the world, I will believe what you explain to us, but when there are a lot of manufacturers out there, and many of them doing it well, I can’t convince myself to believe it.

Remember, result speaks itself.

WOW! Sounds like a lot of folks are stuck in Wifi 4 (Wifi 6 was just announced by WFA this Monday)!

Wifi can do roaming, seamlessly with the phones which are in the market since 2-3 years!
Its offered by couple of retail MESH solutions which work well, and is becoming part of EasyMesh
standardization to be able to use CAP from one vendor and an extender form another one (at least that is the theory).

Shame that sales departments sell products not engineers.
The client devices make the decision to roam on every meshed network product, not the AP, regardless of what the marketing guys want you to believe. The only decision an AP, or a Meshed set of APs can ever do is inform the client with data about the environment that the client may not have been able to determine for itself. E.g. how many clients are connected to an AP, how occupied an AP is, what other APs there are nearby and all of that data can then be passed to the client via additional standards such as 802.11k/r/v. Once the client has received that data, IT then decides where to roam to.
To put it another way, the AP can suggest ideas to the connected device, inform the client about what the best thing is to do. But if the client wants to act stupid and do something different, that's up the client device. The AP cannot force it where to roam to. Regardless of the clever wording used by their marketing department to suggest or claim otherwise.

You are right, an old printer or 11bgn IOT device will not roam and also some chaps with old phones. But you don;t care as they don't need to move really.
But 90% of your customers that move from one AP or extender to another one are mobile phones/tablets and those are the ones complain that they
are no connected or have glitches etc.
Phones/tablets are since couple of years perfectly able to support all the new standards to switch/change.

My point is, I like to have ROS, the swiss knife for Wireless which can do all Wifi applications with one device and one SW.
But we come to a point where I want more performance and functions for indoor use cases, and I will never us an RB4011 for instance as an outdoor PtP device.
Instead of that I would like to have some additional things that would allow to optimise further indoor networks on devices such as RB4011.
In the absence of that, I do use tuned Wifi access lists, but its pretty much a set up per each device, per location to be assigned to one or another. This does not scale at all and needs a lot of testing to work.

My point is, I like to have ROS, the swiss knife for Wireless which can do all Wifi applications with one device and one SW.
But we come to a point where I want more performance and functions for indoor use cases, and I will never us an RB4011 for instance as an outdoor PtP device.
Instead of that I would like to have some additional things that would allow to optimise further indoor networks on devices such as RB4011.
In the absence of that, I do use tuned Wifi access lists, but its pretty much a set up per each device, per location to be assigned to one or another. This does not scale at all and needs a lot of testing to work.

If you've capsman setup correctly then devices should roam seamlessly between AP's. That's my, and others, experience of it. If devices aren't roaming properly then it's worth trying a survey of the area and looking at power levels on your AP's along with access lists.

improving wifi roaming requires solid skill´s and experience on design, configuration and trouble-shooting of the wireless network, and it must be tested against client devices to spot client device bugs or limitations

you cannot get good roaming only taking in count which AP you buy

for example i have seen some android devices who roam nice and others who dont

for example i have seen some windows laptops who roam nice and others who dont

for example i have seen some wireless NIC on a laptop who roam nice with one version of driver and with another version of driver dont roam at all

in wifi networks client device always is a major part of the equation

No, with the more expensive systems that do "seamless roaming" it is the AP/controller that decides where the client is served.
Of course that system also has some disadvantages and also the systems in the price segment where MikroTik operates do not offer this (AFAIK).

I believe you are referring to Single Channel Architecture from what was called 'Meru' now Fortinet. That is a whole new ball game and is not controlling roaming between APs. The difference with SCA is that there is NO roaming on the part of the client as there is only one BSSID and therefore with only one BSSID the client has no need to roam as they believe they are always connected to the same device. Fortinet SCA also introduced virtual cells, where they allow multiple BSSIDs on multiple channels, in which case even with this system, the client decides when to roam between virtual cells. Not the AP or the controller, the client.

There are several manufacturers who offer this option. The key point is the use of a single BSSID across APs, making the client move from one AP to the other without any participation and without it even knowing about it. Thus it also cannot go wrong based on client behavior or limitations (like not supporting newer protocols).
The limitation of course is that such a single-BSSID network can only live on a single channel, and so it limits the available bandwidth when compared to a network of a single SSID across multiple APs with different channels in use.
But as you write, you could still make a config with the same SSID on different channels each with a BSSID, the client would have to decide to roam between them but it would not affect performance assuming that the quality of the channels is the same. Maybe in an environment where some channels have interference from neighbors and others have not, it would be a problem that clients stick on the interfered channels, but the admin (or the controller software) could just turn those channels off and thus force everyone to the working channel(s).

Of course to implement such a system there have to be changes in the drivers and upper layer software, and there is a need for a "controller" to manage the actual connections (although one of the APs could take this function). It will also help when the configuration is done professionally, with measurements of the covered area of each AP and entering this data in a map understood by the controller. It may not be the market that MikroTik is interested in (also seeing that their top-of-the-line ceiling AP is a $69 unit with 2 chains only on each band).
It could also be that this system is somehow patented and needs to be licensed. I see that another wellknown AP manufacturer in the slightly higher market segment does not offer it either, probably for a reason.

Adding a rule to the access list to kick devices below 87... really helped the roaming on my installs.

Yeah, but as was written before this can also backfire on you, especially when you have no complete coverage of the entire building.
We had another installation where there was some feature configured to auto-add every device to a blacklist for 1 minute every 4 hours, to force everyone to roam should they have moved after initial connection.
As there was only coverage from 1 AP in certain spots, this effectively kicked off everyone in those spots in the middle of the working day.
Not a big issue when the network is only used for browsing, but in our case there were RDP and Citrix sessions that were interrupted etc.

I won't pretend my Mikrotik Caps systems can touch My Ruckus systems.

but that kick below -87 in the access-list, is one of the easier tweaks that HELPED with roaming.

Yeah, but as was written before this can also backfire on you, especially when you have no complete coverage of the entire building.
We had another installation where there was some feature configured to auto-add every device to a blacklist for 1 minute every 4 hours, to force everyone to roam should they have moved after initial connection.
As there was only coverage from 1 AP in certain spots, this effectively kicked off everyone in those spots in the middle of the working day.
Not a big issue when the network is only used for browsing, but in our case there were RDP and Citrix sessions that were interrupted etc.

from the moment of the design in which the location of the ap is defined you must take into account these adjustments to improve or force roaming without punishing the coverage

if the initial design did not contemplate that, a configuration will not solve it

Works fine, admin is the problem

Works fine, admin is the problem

Well, I'm just telling my feeling after comparing to the cheapest TP-Link mesh kit with k/v/r supported system, it makes my hAP AC2 + cAP AC looks like an idiot. Maximum download speed, roaming performance, handling multi clients, stability, all lost.

A person here said MikroTik don't use chipset stock driver due to better maintenance and no need to ask for mercy if any problem from the driver, end up we are now asking for mercy for MikroTik to add those highly demanded features like k/v/r and band steering.

If you only use MikroTik solution, you see no problem, until you try another solution from other vendor, you will know what we are talking about.

One man complaint, maybe mistake; many complaints, must be a reason.

Works fine, admin is the problem

Well, I'm just telling my feeling after comparing to the cheapest TP-Link mesh kit with k/v/r supported system, it makes my hAP AC2 + cAP AC looks like an idiot. Maximum download speed, roaming performance, handling multi clients, stability, all lost.

A person here said MikroTik don't use chipset stock driver due to better maintenance and no need to ask for mercy if any problem from the driver, end up we are now asking for mercy for MikroTik to add those highly demanded features like k/v/r and band steering.

If you only use MikroTik solution, you see no problem, until you try another solution from other vendor, you will know what we are talking about.

One man complaint, maybe mistake; many complaints, must be a reason.

Agree, Tplink EAP + OC control don't require alot config like capsman, just plug n play.
They have both roaming and bandsteering working smooth.

Anyone who has attended or watched one of Ron's panels on WiFi realizes he is a very trustworthy source for information and advice. I would heed his words.

What I do see repeatedly mentioned is 802.11k/r/v, which as of now (to my knowledge) is completely absent from RouterOS.

I pray the Mikrotik guys bump that up on the priority roadmap. It's really important. When I hear "Mikrotik" brought up it's almost always followed by "wireless". I'd wager the majority of Mikrotik device sales are wireless in nature. The 802.11k/r/v standards are one of the highlight misses of Mikrotik devices.

This would be a GREAT Christmas 2019 holiday present to your customers!

Edit: Realizing that maybe the standards are unknown to some... so a quick elaboration:
802.11k = "Neighbor Reports"
802.11r = "Fast BSS Transition"
802.11v = "BSS Transition Management Frames"
...all intended to assist in roaming in CAP environments. As Ron said, it provides extended data to clients to assist with AP decisions/transitions and generally make them more accurate and smooth.

Hello,

Seamless roaming is mostly related to network design like: proper Tx power level, proper frequency and channel width, activated datarates, activated chains, activated technologies and adjusted rest parameters available on MT ROS. Also distance between CAPs should be adjusted. Interference from outside - other WiFis and non WiFi interference should be considered.

WiFi seamless roaming itself requires a huge level of expertise. At least CWNA level.
Technologies like 802.11k can speed up roaming for fast moving client.
802.11v -can help select less congested AP (if available near).
802.11r- can help speed up roaming if you are using EAP authentication.

With proper RF design and settings on MT Capsman -> all MT wireless hardware (which supports b/g/n/ or a/n/ac) I tested can do seamless Roaming for voice and video like skype, viber, whatsup, etc. No ping losses etc.
No feel of call or moving picture disruption. In case CAPs are positioned with more than -70dBm distance between each other (Tx power for CAPs should not exceed clients Tx power level) than some video disruptions may be noticed, but not voice.

In case you start high data throughput tests between client and AP - the seamless roaming can become problematic, as there becomes less time for the client to scan for other APs to roam to.

Of course It would be nice if MT team additionally implements (at least experimental 802.11k) with enable/disable option per SSID for mobile clients(which support it) to do less channel scanning during movement from one AP to another.

Hello,

Seamless roaming is mostly related to network design like: proper Tx power level, proper frequency and channel width, activated datarates, activated chains, activated technologies and adjusted rest parameters available on MT ROS. Also distance between CAPs should be adjusted. Interference from outside - other WiFis and non WiFi interference should be considered.

WiFi seamless roaming itself requires a huge level of expertise. At least CWNA level.
Technologies like 802.11k can speed up roaming for fast moving client.
802.11v -can help select less congested AP (if available near).
802.11r- can help speed up roaming if you are using EAP authentication.

With proper RF design and settings on MT Capsman -> all MT wireless hardware (which supports b/g/n/ or a/n/ac) I tested can do seamless Roaming for voice and video like skype, viber, whatsup, etc. No ping losses etc.
No feel of call or moving picture disruption. In case CAPs are positioned with more than -70dBm distance between each other (Tx power for CAPs should not exceed clients Tx power level) than some video disruptions may be noticed, but not voice.

In case you start high data throughput tests between client and AP - the seamless roaming can become problematic, as there becomes less time for the client to scan for other APs to roam to.

Of course It would be nice if MT team additionally implements (at least experimental 802.11k) with enable/disable option per SSID for mobile clients(which support it) to do less channel scanning during movement from one AP to another.

True, I did make sure I have about -70dBm for both APs in the handover area, by the time i wrote this post MT had a hard time to handover my client and eventually dropped connection after 10 pings, but with recent firmware it seems getting better as it will handover better and no crazy ping drop like before, and the log file is now showing "registered to other device in network" just like CAPsMAN do, it was used to be like "disconnected, extensive data loss", I think MT has done some fixes on handover, good job MT!

To Nest. The VAP (virtual AP) of Fortinet comes with "some" control by the wireless controller in the roaming decision of the client. The wireless controller (e.g. Fortigate) steers the FortiAP in the way they respond to the request for joining by a client. It is still the client who decides, but the client is tricked in the number of options it has. This is a professional system, that can be rolled out in a conference centre or other business. https://help.fortinet.com/fos60hlp/60/C ... %20roaming : "the wireless controller selects the least busy access point that is closest to the new client and this access point is the one that responds to the client and the one that the client joins".

In my current implementations which are not "high density" deployments, rather on a large campus, and not for business, there is no need for this feature. (FortiAP is very expensive compared to MKT) Actually other lower cost systems, besides enforcing airtime fairness, use RSSI absolute and relative values to kick out weak clients (who take too much airtime anyway) to force them to "recalculate" their AP selection. After the short blacklist timeout, they might come back.

You can use load balancing group to optimize conference center with multiple CAPs for equal client quantity loading per AP.

https://help.fortinet.com/fos60hlp/60/C ... %20roaming : "the wireless controller selects the least busy access point that is closest to the new client and this access point is the one that responds to the client and the one that the client joins".

It helps. But as you agreed and stated, the client makes the decision. Fortinet’s controller can instruct an AP to stop communicating with a client to encourage the client to be forced to roam elsewhere. However it cannot tell the client which AP to roam to. It can effectively provide suggestions only. The controller may hear the client best on a specific AP or may know how many clients are currently connected to all APs and decide which is best for the client. But that’s not the view of the world from the clients perspective. It may hear a totally different AP which is further away better. Therefore will roam to that one instead. Also some client device vendors code take a very aggressive attitude to APs that stop communicating or constantly kick clients off their AP by blacklisting that AP for lengthy periods of time so when the AP wishes that client to roam back, the client say no.

The strength of MT boards has never been in Wifi but the fact that for a very small price you have a super configurable unit with long term support. This flexibility means you have to do a lot of testing on your own, sometimes wait for fixes. For sure other brands works better out of the box but you quickly reach the max you can do and will have only 4-5 updates in the product lifetime never adding any functionalities.

If you found better and cheaper units to covers your scenario then I guess you should stick to them. No-one forces you to have only a single brand for your network. I have second hands switches with many ports that were a bargain and work exactly has they are supposed to but they are out of support now for more than 4y.

Why do You think that Mikrotik is not strong in Wifi? They have plenty of products to select from for your needs. The main thing is to select proper one and adjust related wifi parameters for your needs. MT so far did not had effective band steering parameters, which they plan to add in near future.

Their drivers have some compatibility issues in standard 802.11 mode, I know MT blame smartphone builders in return but they are inferior in this respect to other brands. Stability is excellent *when* it works, in opposition achieving max rated speed is so hard we could probably organize a contest... Just my experience with less than 30 clients on 3 different models, glad if yours differs. I love MT products but I would not recommend MT as standalone AP only to anyone. I cannot speak for nv2 but I expect huge improvements in standards drivers for r7 or.. r8... To be fair they have already improved over the last 4y.

I also noticed instability with Omnitik ac only on my ipad pro on 20-40 mhz bandwidth on ac datarates. 80 mhz works fine. If you disable ac datarates also works fine on 20-40 mhz bandwidth. Still they could not fix it for 6 months, even though I sent captures from air during instability.Rest models do not have any issues. You should not plan more than 15-20 clients on any vendor AP. Otherwise you will face low throughput and higher collisions. Also proper radio and parameters planning is a must for high client quantity and throughput.

30 clients was referring to the total amount of clients that ever connected among all the AP I manage. Concurrently I have 1 or 2 at max. You would not expect deep radio analysis in those scenarios beside finding some low usage channels. I also observe more issues with AC, I even ended disabled it on hap AC lite. For your case make sure it is not caused by radar detection

It is not radar. Radar effects only DFS channels. Hap ac lite has only one chain for a/n/ac . So is not very suitable for performance applications. How about co channel and adjacent channel and neighbor channel interferences? So what kind of compatibility issues do you have and with which routerboard and ROS version?.

Hi there i have mikrotik hap ac and move to a bigger house wifi just suck I waill add tp link m4 to mikrotk and use mikrotik to be a router with vpn and tp link m4 is dealing with all the wifi. did you have this setup? What can you tell me about it? did you set your tp link as AP and mikrotik as router right?

Hi there i have mikrotik hap ac and move to a bigger house wifi just suck I waill add tp link m4 to mikrotk and use mikrotik to be a router with vpn and tp link m4 is dealing with all the wifi. did you have this setup? What can you tell me about it? did you set your tp link as AP and mikrotik as router right?

Yes, but if the house is big you'll need more than an only AP anyway (brand is not so important, maximum legal power limit is for all).

I will buy kit of 3 https://www.amazon.es/gp/product/B07P49 ... UTF8&psc=1

Most of thing being said in protection of no roaming in Mikrotik is just wrong. We did extensive testing of mikrotik / some other wifi equipment here, and having 802.11 k/v/r + band steering support increases roaming quality a lot. It works at least because client can do FT-PSK transition, which is way faster. While maybe theoretically there exist smart clients, which can do nice roaming on wifi without these tech, most of clients gains significant benefits from fast transition. Especially modern phones, like Iphone, it can really roam between distinct (not virtual APs), without any noticeable VOIP call interruptions, including roaming between 5 ghz and 2.4 ghz points.

I honestly advise ones who doubt to compare any 802.11 k/v/r enabled system and mikrotik roaming, especially in things like VOIP and video calls.

Hello,

Could you please list these most wrong items in sequence?

Additionnally 802.11r is required for FT of EAP. For PSK there is no tangible difference.

801.11k/v can speedup the process but is not panacea in bad RF design.

I think I'm missing something here...
The thread is tagged as "RESOLVED" but I don't think I saw the OP indicating that something resolved his problem? ...or have I missed something?

hAP AC2 main51
cAP AC kit51
AC:C1:EE:44:B2:CB Xiaomi phone
No ACL
With ACL -120..-75 reject:

Main51: ACL reject -120...-75: but signal strength (weakness) is within the reject range with -80..-81 dBm. Rejected as expected.
kit51: IP address 258.472.4.17 ???????? Thought that maximum value for 8 bit number was 255! No idea where this bit overflow is going. No communication might drop the connection.

Disconnects and goes to Main51 where signal is too weak??? Reduce TX power of main51 not to fool you Xiaomi phone. ???
Correct DHCP address range to fit in the 4 bytes of an IPv4 address.

Yes. Rejected as expected. With ACL reject phone looses internet connection every 1-2 minutes. And it somtemes stop trying to connect wifi at all.
Don't be so boring about IP address. I've just don't want to reveal real addresses.... Mikrotik will never allow you to enter a completely wrong address. I'm boring now too....
Tx power of main51 is already very low. Phone(!) barely sees a main5(~-75-90dBm)

If I reduce the TX power, then on all other devices roaming will stop working.

I noticed today that this happens when the phone tries to enter sleep mode. And it droppin RX/TX rates.... MB there is a way to forbid low rates?
UPD. And look like it helps.

Setting minimum power for access does not help much if there is no alternative, apart from annoying to totally holding off slow devices. Why does your device select Main51 and not kit51?
Was looking for possible reasons, and IP setting was a potential reason.why kit51 disconnected. Other people set XXXes if they hide the IP address.

Avoiding slow speeds can also be done in advanced mode with "data rates" and "HT MCS" settings. But a similar remark ... if there is no alternative the device will keep trying.
https://metis.fi/en/2018/09/rates/ . It is the station device (wifi client) that decides where to connect to. Algoritmes or criteria for this are mostly not documented.

Higher speeds need a better encoding. And a better encoding needs a better signal to noise ratio.
This table gives an indication of the signal strength required: https://www.wlanpros.com/resources/802- ... -download/

And to be boring again: a stronger AP signal does not help much. Wifi is bidirectional, if the AP cannot receive the device, there is no communication possible.https://metis.fi/en/2017/10/txpower/

When Roaming takes place, the WiFi client plays a really important role!
As for the AP all we do is use some techniques to just improve it....
Mikrotik does support IEEE 802.11r-2008, fast Roaming, since 6.35 or something...

Mikrotik does support IEEE 802.11r-2008, fast Roaming, since 6.35 or something...

Really?

Mikrotik does support IEEE 802.11r-2008, fast Roaming, since 6.35 or something...

Really?

Thats what a good source has told me... Am i wrong?
Release 6.35
wireless-rep - initial support for station roaming for station mode in 802.11 protocol;

Thats what a good source has told me... Am i wrong?

Yes, you are.

Release 6.35
wireless-rep - initial support for station roaming for station mode in 802.11 protocol;

That has nothing to do with 802.11r. That was just the initial implementation of the ordinary roaming for mode=station. Before that change Mikrotik wireless clients never attempted to roam until signal is lost.

Then i am wrong...

I noticed today that this happens when the phone tries to enter sleep mode. And it droppin RX/TX rates.... MB there is a way to forbid low rates?
UPD. And look like it helps.

No, it didn’t help. Maybe a little better.

And to be boring again: a stronger AP signal does not help much. Wifi is bidirectional, if the AP cannot receive the device, there is no communication possible.https://metis.fi/en/2017/10/txpower/

It happends in 1-3 meters from AP. It ALWAYS happend with low rates, when phone is trying to sleep. And it usually happend at night.
There is no problems at all when using phone(high data rates). No packet drop, no issues with quiality.
P.S. There is two phones with that problem. Xiaomi Redmi Note 3 Pro and Redmi Note 3 SE(both are have identical hardware and quite old). I have plans to upgrade, but....
Xiaomi Mi MIX 2,Mi 5s plus, Meizu M5 Note are working well.
P.P.S. Sorry about IP addresses.

A user of Mikrotik for about 10 years already. I love Mikrotik for many things, but this one is a very painful topic to me.

I have been able to set up some decent roaming at home with twothree access points but that took unbelievably many hours for the far-from-perfect user experience. Until now I still have a few spots around the flat where no rules can make the device properly reassociate, and sometimes the device gets kicked for a good minute, probably because the client is upset with numerous disassociations due to CAPs rules.

There are many posts here and it kind of repeats itself, and here it goes again: Mikrotik is bad at roaming. They really neglect this topic and I am very sad to admit it.

ACLs on CAPs are a really complicated and ineffective tool that unfortunately is sufficient to serve as an argument of "we do support roaming". No, you don't! You support a script-based way of hard-kicking a client off a given ap, and
- some clients don't like that.
- The setup is hard to manage, it is very sensitive to AP location which is not something that's easy to adjust in a real house.
- It still drops one or two pings in the best case.
- VOIP is always glitching, and the worst thing is that it's never stable. Tolerable 3 times out of 4, and creates a minute-long hiccup once in a while.
- Sensitive to having to jump multiple times if one roams from one place to another and then back immediately.

In short, I'm really disappointed that RouterOS 7 beta has not a word about this thing. I am seriously considering other alternatives, including the expensive Ruckus. As much fun it was to get my hands dirty with Mikrotik configs, I just sometimes want to focus on other things and not run from a room to another measuring signal strength and updating ALCs for hours, just to achieve a mediocre result.

Please see access list that kind of works for me, finally. And you know what? On every power loss all the interfaces are gone from the rules below! I need to go over them and reapply. How user friendly is that?
the below happens after power reset, note the interface names

Hello
Access lists are only useful for cheap or old sticky clients.
For rest is will make thing worse if you do not know how wifi works or there are special cases for using access lists but they are not for roaming...

Try CWNA - 107 for the beginning, ( or hire CWNP engineer) otherwise wifi will not do seamless roaming on any vendor.

Regards.

Hello
Access lists are only useful for cheap or old sticky clients.
For rest is will make thing worse if you do not know how wifi works or there are special cases for using access lists but they are not for roaming...

Try CWNA - 107 for the beginning, ( or hire CWNP engineer) otherwise wifi will not do seamless roaming on any vendor.

Regards.

Maybe this is true for other vendors/cases, but with Mikrotik, it's reportedly the main way to adjust the roaming behavior, both officially documented and advised by the users.
Surely, AP placement, proper power and channel selection are also factors in play, however they are never sufficient to get an overlapped coverage to work smoothly.

It is not officially documented to use access lists by mikrotik for seamless roaming. Please share the link if any.
The best advice will be to follow CWNA, CWDP practices.

It is not officially documented to use access lists by mikrotik for seamless roaming. Please share the link if any.
The best advice will be to follow CWNA, CWDP practices.

https://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Manual:CAPsMAN_tips

It's not implied that any of the tips will help with roaming, just good advice.

I have found on larger sites, well placed APs (like 1 per room), limiting TX power to 10dBm or 20dBm and *only* using 5GHz that roaming works well. The problem with 2.4GHz is that it has usable range beyond the room the AP even with lower power and that links between the AP and client are not symmetric in quality.

Try setting rates to a minimum of 18 or 24Mbit along with lower power levels instead of struggling with ACLs to limit level ranges. By doing this even with usable power levels it might not be strong enough to support rates higher than 18Mbit so the client will disconnect by itself and try find a better signal. You don't ever want your client holding on for dear life at 1Mbit which it will do. My example below limits rates to 12Mbit and above.

/caps-man rates
add basic=12Mbps name=Rates1 supported=\
12Mbps,18Mbps,24Mbps,36Mbps,48Mbps,54Mbps

Hello,

You should avoid Tx powers of more than 6dbm on 2.4 GHz with multiple cap setups. Otherwise you may get similar condition as with sticky clients.
Limiting only MCS does not limit EMR and may create collisions.

Please take your trolling nonsense elsewhere.

Look dude, I was network owner and admin for 14 years. Over that time I saw MIkrotik deveplment from the begining. Recently I must admit that You personaly, maybe other Mikrotik stuff, are very rude. People are giving reasonable problems to solve and You answers are ignorant or simply rude!
And in most of those cases it is Mikrotik OS or Router hardware, that really has issues, but You are very slow to admint that and look at the problem.
I remember a time when Mikrotik was small company, that was listening to their users. Now You behave like big arrogant corporations, but you are actually still small company.

So maybe get back to being helpfull and listen to your user problems, try to fix them instead of saying that MT is working cool or buy more expensive Mikrotik and os on.

You typical answer on this forum is: Mikrotik is cool, user is stupid, or buy more expensive device.

Cool down and get to the ground.
We have a saying in my country - You wont jump higher than your ass!