* MikroTik released a new wireless driver package lately:

RouterOS version 7.1beta3 has been released in public "development" channel!
!) added new experimental wireless package "wifiwave2" for ARM devices with more than 256 MB of RAM (CLI only);

* Regarding the RAM requirement, I have to note that my cAP ac device shows over 80 MB of free RAM, even when 30+ clients are concurrently connected. So I assume that there is plenty of RAM left for using the new wireless firmware and drivers on IPQ4018/IPQ4019 devices which have 128 MB of RAM installed.

* Also, as this new package contains several firmware files, libraries and linux kernel modules for different chipsets the file npk package is quite big. With its 10MB it is not possible to install it on current devices with 16MB of ROM, e.g. cAP ac, hAP ac2, new wAP ac, ...


* Of course, I want to have new features like 802.11w and MU-MIMO, WPA3 and better performance on my current MikroTik cAP ac devices. According to https://help.mikrotik.com/docs/display/ROS/WifiWave2 "400Mb/s maximum data rate in the 2.4GHz band for IPQ4019 interfaces" is possible.

* While looking around for information about modifying MikroTik´s npk packages, you could find different outdated tools for RouterOS v6 (e.g. https://github.com/kost/mikrotik-npk/). Therefore I want to ask whether someone of you already tried modifying a RouterOS V7 package at all?

* Of course, if MikroTik will provide a separate kind of "wifiwave2-lite" package for IPQ/4018/IPQ4019 devices with 16MB of ROM, I wouldn´t have to start this thread at all.

You can't modify packages, they are digitally signed and will not install if you change them in any way.

But I agree it's clearly possible to make much smaller new wifi package. Also the RAM requirement can be lowered by using smaller buffers. The default sizes are optimized to get absolute maximum performance from wave2 hardware, but even if you scale them down a lot (say 10x smaller) you will have all the advantages of wave2 with possibly slower performance at maximum MCSs, often requiring quite unrealistic signal levels anyway.
It might even be possible to fit it all into 16MB flash if it's really optimized (remove all debugging info, messages etc.), remove old wifi package completely, build driver with compiler set to optimize for code size instead of performance (again it would be better to have fully working wave2 features with slightly lower performance on some devices than no wave2 at all).

Maybe in general building all non-performance ROS components (winbox, console,...) as code size optimized instead of performance may be a good idea to get a bit more space. If winbox is few milliseconds slower there and there, it will probably not even be noticeable...

Maybe in general building all non-performance ROS components (winbox, console,...) as code size optimized instead of performance may be a good idea to get a bit more space.

I guess you analyzed all ROS parts to claim that none of code is size-optimized?

While I'm looking forward to wave2 driver for hAP ac2 I really hate seeing so many posts telling MT devs what to do, pressing them to rush things (and at the same time nagging over unsquashed bugs). Did occur to anybody that debuging symbols in ROS parts might be necessary to create supouts? I don't know that either, but I guess it's possible. I guess many would trade supouts for additional functionality, but then even more bugs would be lurking around.
I'm pretty sure MT will do everything to make their hardware perform as good as it's possible ... and I guess they know their hardware slightly better than most of us, forum members. So let's give them a break so that they can get ROSv7 out of beta. We'll try to persuade them to release wave2 drivers for lower end wireless devices then ...

I'm just trying to brainstorm some ways to get it running. Yes, I have analyzed the package quite a lot, so while I can't be sure about used compiler options, I can see some details that may not be normally visible, like that debug info. And I agree with you, removing any debug information will make error reporting and debugging much harder, so it's not something you would do at this stage of the development... but once it's stable it's one of the ways to slim it down. It's like that scene from Apollo 13 where they have to turn off pretty much each and every non-essential device to stay within energy budget. Slimming software this much is quite ugly process and a lot of stuff has to go. I'm not holding my breath this will actually happen, just saying there are still some ways left to explore and that there is still some hope this might be possible...

MU-MIMO spec was set over 5 years ago.

Mikrotik has put their implementation for it into DEVELOPMENT branch now.

Meanwhile... Evey other vendor is focused on WiFi 6. Many have had it out for months.

I gave up on Mikrotik wireless for anything critical a long time ago. Mostly for how it doesn't deal well with interference. Caps-man on a good radio would be a game changer... Notice I typed "good radio".

But the push back I am going to face with UniF--k having 2 WiFi 6 radio choices, just isn't worth my time. Gonna have to continue sending customers to Amazon to get Ruckus at below my costs.

MU-MIMO spec was set over 5 years ago.

Mikrotik has put their implementation for it into DEVELOPMENT branch now.

Meanwhile... Evey other vendor is focused on WiFi 6. Many have had it out for months.

I gave up on Mikrotik wireless for anything critical a long time ago. Mostly for how it doesn't deal well with interference. Caps-man on a good radio would be a game changer... Notice I typed "good radio".

But the push back I am going to face with UniF--k having 2 WiFi 6 radio choices, just isn't worth my time. Gonna have to continue sending customers to Amazon to get Ruckus at below my costs.

Take a look to cambium, project prices are great. Performance is top, service is top,
Switches and AP’s with same Cloud / lokal Config like Capsman. AX is available

MU-MIMO spec was set over 5 years ago.

Mikrotik has put their implementation for it into DEVELOPMENT branch now.

Meanwhile... Evey other vendor is focused on WiFi 6. Many have had it out for months.

I gave up on Mikrotik wireless for anything critical a long time ago. Mostly for how it doesn't deal well with interference. Caps-man on a good radio would be a game changer... Notice I typed "good radio".

But the push back I am going to face with UniF--k having 2 WiFi 6 radio choices, just isn't worth my time. Gonna have to continue sending customers to Amazon to get Ruckus at below my costs.

Take a look to cambium, project prices are great. Performance is top, service is top,
Switches and AP’s with same Cloud / lokal Config like Capsman. AX is available

Cambium just lost a major lawsuit to UBNT.

I have beaten the hell out of their APs and they are not much better than Mikrotik. More inline with UniF--k performance. And get clobbered by Ruckus. No need to waste any more time on them.

The new WiFi 6 stuff was fantastically expensive when I talked to them a few months ago. And they are horrible about delivery vs announcement. I think I got my e600 2 years after the initial inquiry.

And their prices on switches are ridiculous.

Wave 2 cannot be supported on MEMORY deprived devices PERIOD. If you are hoping and praying that its possible you are dreaming in vivid color. :-)

On OpenWrt it's supported xD

TP link have got wifi 6 on most of their latest offerings some with OFDMA and some with both OFDMA and mu-mimo.
All priced reasonably. Dont have any experience with them but do use the EAP245 which is a solid performing, stable version of what the current MTs should have been!!

Wave2 requires FAR more resources ... ACTIVE Memory Resources [RAM in simple terms] ... Wave 2 cannot be supported on MEMORY deprived devices PERIOD. If you are hoping and praying that its possible you are dreaming in vivid color. :-)

Well, it´s about having a wireless package for testing, only. Let´s see whether 128MB of RAM is enough. Let us compare cAP ac with 128MB to older cAP ac with 256MB of RAM. Is there any limitation in a real environment? Who knows? Let us user check and report it back to MikroTik for getting a better wifi.

On OpenWrt it's supported xD

According to https://help.mikrotik.com/docs/display/ROS/WifiWave2 with WifiWave2 Mikrotik´s access points reach "400Mb/s maximum data rate in the 2.4GHz band for IPQ4019 interfaces".
What about OpenWrt? What throughput do you get with 2.4GHz or 5.0Ghz with 20, 40 or 80 MHz channels? Have you tried "irqbalance" and enabled it by adding /usr/sbin/irqbalance to /etc/rc.local to improve throughput on your (was it cAP ac or hAP ac2)?

Yeah TP-Link's Wifi 6 access points are released too and they are a beast.

Yeah TP-Link's Wifi 6 access points are released too and they are a beast.

So, what iperf throughput do you get with 2x2:2 MIMO Up and down with 20, 40 and 80 MHz channels for 2.4 and 5.0 GHz? What access point are you refering to? TP-Link EAP620 or EAP660HD?

Posted few findings here viewtopic.php?f=1&t=169992#p836843

With OpenWRT on wAP AC (original), I get ~ 350mbps single client TCP throughput at MCS-9, 2x2, 80 MHz, WPA3. Device CPU is very close to 100% though which seems to be the limiting factor. Very happy with stability, every device "just works" and no weird throughput issues like MT wireless has with certain client chipsets. Looks like OpenWRT support for cAP AC (and presumably new wAP AC) is almost there, will be interesting to compare with a better CPU.

I just performed some tests with netbooted OpenWRT on hAP ac²: Even with performance cpu governor it actually performed slightly worse than my RouterOS 6.46.8 setup with capsman + local forwarding and secondary ssid.

The only real indication that there is unused potential on the hap ac² with RouterOS is the fact that single stream TCP iperf for iphone7(2x2)->hap_ac²->PC on close range is able to hit 470 Mbps, while the other direction cannot exceed 400 Mbps. OpenWRT was somewhere arround 350-370 Mbps for the same setup.
Real world performance is lower; tests with my RouterOS setup at speedtest.net result in around 300 Mbps download while the OpenWRT testrun for comparison was around 250 Mbps.

So my only expectation for wifiwave2 is to close the gap between up- and download, better real world performance and maybe slightly more stable datarates.

The only real indication that there is unused potential on the hap ac² with RouterOS is the fact that single stream TCP iperf for iphone7(2x2)->hap_ac²->PC on close range is able to hit 470 Mbps, while the other direction cannot exceed 400 Mbps.

470 Mbit/s download at 2x2:2 MIMO with 80MHz @5GHz on a hap ac2 and RouterOS 6? => This sounds to good to be true...

Well, it's only when the hap ac2 is on the receiving end and only in 1-stream iperf. I guess it's a best case scenario and I was testing at about 1m distance with clear line of sight.
I just wanted to point out, that the current ROS 6 only appears to be bad at _sending_ wifi data at high speed (>300 Mbps), but when it's on the receiving end performance is pretty much perfect. On my 1x1 Android device I get ~250 Mbps in both directions, it has been like that for me since the long-term 6.45 release.
If the current state of OpenWRT is representative of "real" wifiwave2 performance I wouldn't expect huge benefits from it.

Edit: All tests performed at 5 GHz with 80 MHz bandwidth. Specifically I am using channel 116 Ceee, this is DFS/weather radar range but luckily DFS doesn't trigger here.

I got in the 300s 4 feet away at the office since moving to 6.48.

Still 200M off the mark once you flip manufactures.

I got in the 300s 4 feet away at the office since moving to 6.48.

Still 200M off the mark once you flip manufactures.

Do you have the possibility to do some iperf3 tests?

I got in the 300s 4 feet away at the office since moving to 6.48.

Still 200M off the mark once you flip manufactures.

Do you have the possibility to do some iperf3 tests?

Honestly... I get really tired of testing Mikrotik wireless.

I have found its sandbox, and I keep it there.

~500 Mbps download with 2x2 client very close to Chateau (no wifiwave2 for Chateau - not expensive enough I guess).

~500 Mbps download with 2x2 client very close to Chateau (no wifiwave2 for Chateau - not expensive enough I guess).

Thank you for the results.

~500 Mbps download with 2x2 client very close to Chateau (no wifiwave2 for Chateau - not expensive enough I guess).

Thank you for the results.

Uhh huh... And what was the actually reporting throughput at the device?

Uhh huh... And what was the actually reporting throughput at the device?

Screenshot from the device (iPhone 6S) has been added.

What about OpenWrt? What throughput do you get with 2.4GHz or 5.0Ghz with 20, 40 or 80 MHz channels? Have you tried "irqbalance" and enabled it by adding /usr/sbin/irqbalance to /etc/rc.local to improve throughput on your (was it cAP ac or hAP ac2)?

Well I haven't tested with iperf recently but my connection is 75/75mbps and OpenWrt delivers it without problems on 5GHz 80MHz channel 132, I can also hit 75mbps on 2.4GHz 20MHz using any 2x2 client.

The most noticeable change from ROS is that my WiFi is super stable, I can run it for more than a month without any 5GHz drop vs ROS where getting stable 5GHz is a PITA and it randomly disconnects devices during midnight.

Also OpenWrt recently added Coverage cell density option which allows to control the basic rates to eg 12 24 or 24 mbps instead of the default making a better airtime usage.

The only downside is that you can't exploit all the potential OpenWrt has to offer (VPN/multimedia server, etc) due to the limited amount of RAM on the ac2 but it works nicely as a home router doing QoS.

With OpenWRT on wAP AC (original), I get ~ 350mbps single client TCP throughput at MCS-9, 2x2, 80 MHz, WPA3.

Which release do you use? Stable or snapshot? ar71xx or ath79 driver?

I just realized that my OpenWrt tests with hAP ac² were slowed down by not using irqbalance. With irqbalance the same iperf test reaches 400+ Mbps in both directions, sometimes even up to 500 Mbps, so it's definitely not worse than ROS.
Testing towards the internet with speedtest.net still fails to exceed 300 Mbps by a noticable margin, this is now pretty much identical between ROS 6.46.8 and the latest OpenWRT Snapshot.

I must say that I find openwrt very interesting. I'd like to run with wpa3 on my CAPs and MT have not committed to any new features. I'm sure they will do something, eventually though.

My Ruckus H510 at my desk it where I connect hard wired devices. I bought it in 2017 for $200. It got a firmware update adding WPA3 a few months ago.

It's AC MU-MIMO has worked since day one.

After almost two months of testing, 7.1b3 with wave2 only works for one device connected.
More devices usually fails to authenticate or are rebooting device. In past somehow I was able to add more devices as long as they were not disconnecting, as later they were unable to reconnect, but since latest factory reset I cannot even get that far.

Regarding range vs ros 6, the new implementation is completely smashing ros 6. In general ros 6 is not for the job for good few years now when it comes to WiFi range, stability and performance. My 2012 AirPort Extreme does much better job than 2019 audience.
But with wave2, it behaves like much different device, like proper 2019/2020 device.
However behind wifi6. Not that much of a problem tbh unless you have 1gbit internet connection.

Can’t wait for more stable wave2!
Thanks for adding it to ros7.

I must say that I find openwrt very interesting. I'd like to run with wpa3 on my CAPs and MT have not committed to any new features. I'm sure they will do something, eventually though.

IPQ401X devices with less than 256MB RAM are now "legacy" for the eyes of MT, I don't think they can add WPA3 on top of their "legacy" wireless implementation.

I must say that I find openwrt very interesting. I'd like to run with wpa3 on my CAPs and MT have not committed to any new features. I'm sure they will do something, eventually though.

IPQ401X devices with less than 256MB RAM are now "legacy" for the eyes of MT, I don't think they can add WPA3 on top of their "legacy" wireless implementation.

The cAP ac only has 128MB and it's current, so does this mean there's some new cAP 2.0 in the works?

I think early generation of cap AC were released with 256MB. But a later revision reduced that. All mine have 256MB.
I could be wrong here. I'll see if I can grab a screen shot.
But it might be possible to load through CAPSMAN. In theory it should be possible, to load a binary file with a config. But that takes Dev time and that costs money. MT have no incentive. But, stay hopeful. Probably need new hardware though. I do hope they make something with a generous amount of flash and ram so that features can eventually be trickled over time. Otherwise, I'll not bother with MT CAPs next time. I don't mind waiting. But if it never appears... Their track record is not great with wi-fi..

6 years behind?

No references at all to WiFi 6?

Yeah... It's called RouterOS!

6 years behind?
No references at all to WiFi 6?
Yeah... It's called RouterOS!

Well, no. The new wireless package contains firmware and drivers for multiple 802.11ax chipsets. Take a look at the screenshots above.

6 years behind?
No references at all to WiFi 6?
Yeah... It's called RouterOS!

Well, no. The new wireless package contains firmware and drivers for multiple 802.11ax chipsets. Take a look at the screenshots above.

Here's the screen shot that matters...

Here's the screen shot that matters...

I was refering to this one

So there is IPQ6018, IPQ8074, IPQ8074v2. MikroTik is not the only vendor developing access points but does not sell 802.11ax access points nowadays, btw.

"If only caps-man could manage a good radio"

I hear that several times a week...

any capac2 variant should not be a fix to the current wifi5 old implementation, a slap in the face to current capac owners, they should go straight to wifi 6. So its a real change worth considering.

FYI hAP ac2 just got official OpenWRT support, this milestone opens the possibility of supporting more Mikrotik IPQ40XX devices such as cAP ac and hAP ac3 in the future.

https://firmware-selector.openwrt.org/? ... ik_hap-ac2

FYI hAP ac2 just got official OpenWRT support, this milestone opens the possibility of supporting more Mikrotik IPQ40XX devices such as cAP ac and hAP ac3 in the future.
https://firmware-selector.openwrt.org/? ... ik_hap-ac2

Nice, thank you. You can also use it with cAP ac, but you have to pay attention while configuring VLANs as the switch configuration is not identical.

MU-MIMO spec was set over 5 years ago.

Mikrotik has put their implementation for it into DEVELOPMENT branch now.

Meanwhile... Evey other vendor is focused on WiFi 6. Many have had it out for months.

I gave up on Mikrotik wireless for anything critical a long time ago. Mostly for how it doesn't deal well with interference. Caps-man on a good radio would be a game changer... Notice I typed "good radio".

But the push back I am going to face with UniF--k having 2 WiFi 6 radio choices, just isn't worth my time. Gonna have to continue sending customers to Amazon to get Ruckus at below my costs.

Take a look to cambium, project prices are great. Performance is top, service is top,
Switches and AP’s with same Cloud / lokal Config like Capsman. AX is available

Cambium just lost a major lawsuit to UBNT.

I have beaten the hell out of their APs and they are not much better than Mikrotik. More inline with UniF--k performance. And get clobbered by Ruckus. No need to waste any more time on them.

The new WiFi 6 stuff was fantastically expensive when I talked to them a few months ago. And they are horrible about delivery vs announcement. I think I got my e600 2 years after the initial inquiry.

And their prices on switches are ridiculous.

Are you saying Cambium is not much better than Mikrotik, and if so which model(s) were you using!

Are you saying Cambium is not much better than Mikrotik, and if so which model(s) were you using!

As the cAP ac Cambium uses IPQ4018 chipset in it E410. But Cambium offers full roaming, MU-MIMO, airtime fairness and has better overall performance when there are more concurrent connected clients. You can apply for a free E410 to check all features: https://www.cambiumnetworks.com/cnpilot-free-ap/

Are you saying Cambium is not much better than Mikrotik, and if so which model(s) were you using!

As the cAP ac Cambium uses IPQ4018 chipset in it E410. But Cambium offers full roaming, MU-MIMO, airtime fairness and has better overall performance when there are more concurrent connected clients. You can apply for a free E410 to check all features: https://www.cambiumnetworks.com/cnpilot-free-ap/

The cambium e410 has come down to $260. That's nearly 4 times as much as the cap AC that it SLIGHTLY out performs.

The Ruckus R510 costs less than the Cambium e410 at Amazon, and absolutely beats the hell out of it as a radio.

Don't get me started on Cambium switch prices.

........................................
Also OpenWrt recently added Coverage cell density option which allows to control the basic rates to eg 12 24 or 24 mbps instead of the default making a better airtime usage.

The only downside is that you can't exploit all the potential OpenWrt has to offer (VPN/multimedia server, etc) due to the limited amount of RAM on the ac2 but it works nicely as a home router doing QoS.

Regardless of what basic rates are selected, Mikrotik always uses 6Mbps for management ?

The cambium e410 has come down to $260. That's nearly 4 times as much as the cap AC that it SLIGHTLY out performs.

Well, iperf3 single client performance with a Cambium E410 access point which uses the same chipset as MikroTIk cAP ac, i.e. IPQ4018.

Upload and download:
-

-

source: https://www.batna24.com/en/great-ap-tes ... npilote410
Multi client performance is another story, where MikroTik is simply bad in my experience. unfortunately.


I´m curious about the Ruckus R510. What chipset does it use? Do you have any iperf3 results?

still the same situation with the ROS 7.1 RCs?

FYI hAP ac2 just got official OpenWRT support, this milestone opens the possibility of supporting more Mikrotik IPQ40XX devices such as cAP ac and hAP ac3 in the future.

https://firmware-selector.openwrt.org/? ... ik_hap-ac2

I finally got around to trying OpenWRT 20.02 today, unfortunately it seems there are multiple revisions of hAP AC2 floating around... the wireless calibration data encoding seems to be different in the models I purchased last year, OpenWRT cannot decode it so the Wi-Fi is unusable. I don't suppose Mikrotik would be open to documenting the encoding?

FYI hAP ac2 just got official OpenWRT support, this milestone opens the possibility of supporting more Mikrotik IPQ40XX devices such as cAP ac and hAP ac3 in the future.

https://firmware-selector.openwrt.org/? ... ik_hap-ac2

I finally got around to trying OpenWRT 20.02 today, unfortunately it seems there are multiple revisions of hAP AC2 floating around... the wireless calibration data encoding seems to be different in the models I purchased last year, OpenWRT cannot decode it so the Wi-Fi is unusable. I don't suppose Mikrotik would be open to documenting the encoding?

Most probably not If I don't got I all wrong, I think there has been some work recently on autodetecting cal data position for some devices?

Yup, I've been running the patched OpenWrt on hAP AC2 for a month now and it's been flawless. Hopefully the PR makes it into the official release soon.

Yup, I've been running the patched OpenWrt on hAP AC2 for a month now and it's been flawless. Hopefully the PR makes it into the official release soon.

So it's wifi 5 V2?

Let me make that really clear to anyone who didn't read the entire thread... Or doesn't understand wireless.

You are hoping that a 2016 wireless standard is fully supported "soon".

Yes, it's 802.11ac, Mikrotik do not make any 802.11ax products.

So... How to actualy achieve this With Hap Ac3?

According to https://help.mikrotik.com/docs/display/ROS/WifiWave2 "400Mb/s maximum data rate in the 2.4GHz band for IPQ4019 interfaces" is possible.

Because on 5 Ghz i get 600 Mbit/s and on 2.4 Ghz i can only get arround 60 Mbit/s and this is realy far from 400 Mbit/s.

Any ideas?

So... How to actualy achieve this With Hap Ac3?

According to https://help.mikrotik.com/docs/display/ROS/WifiWave2 "400Mb/s maximum data rate in the 2.4GHz band for IPQ4019 interfaces" is possible.

Because on 5 Ghz i get 600 Mbit/s and on 2.4 Ghz i can only get arround 60 Mbit/s and this is realy far from 400 Mbit/s.

Any ideas?

Add the WAVE 2 package.

Redo your wireless as the interface does not carry over from the original drivers.

Once it's reconfigured properly... It works about as well as my other AC V2 radios... I was using in 2016.

With a few noticable exceptions. Particularly in ACLs.

Already did this. But still speed on the 2 Ghz interface is realy quite low. I have 2 Hap Ac3 routers.

The one with regular Wifi driver and CAPSMAN achieves arround 45 Mbit/s near router on 2 Ghz and arround 240 Mbit/s on 5 Ghz.
And the other with Wave2 packega achieves around 70 Mbit/s on 2 Ghz and around 600 on 5 Ghz (Maybe even more, limited with internet speed).

Is there anything to add here to acchieve better speed on 2 Ghz?

On 2ghz... Nope.

Ok, thank you for confirmation

I find it interesting, that wave2 package include e.g. IPQ8074 drivers.
https://www.qualcomm.com/products/ipq8074
Mikrotik does not even sell any 802.11ax device until now, but include a driver in their wave2 (!) package.
So they seem to aim for wifi6 as well. Maybe the package will get a renaming, "finally-good-wifi" or something.

You should be able to achieve better performance on 2GHz ... but it very much depends on clients and environment. If clients are capable of 2 stream operations and radio environemnt is clean from noise and interference, then with 20MHz carrier the connection rate should be 144Mbps and net transfer rate should reach up to around 70 Mbps (real throughput). If you switch to 40MHz carrier, the connection rate should be 300Mbps and net transfer rate should reach up to around 150Mbps (real throughput). Any noise or interference from other APs opearting on same or adjacent channels will drop the throughput.

I tried yesterday with Note 10+ I disabled all other networks in 2 Ghz range and tested the speed. It was arround 70 Mbit/s with connection rate 144 Mbit. So possibly, that the phone doesn't support 40 Mhz on 2.4 Ghz. Also, what is the best option for 20/40? Only 20/40 or option with EC, CE, or XX? I don't even know the difference.

Now i tried with 10 year old laptop with centrino wireless and it connects with 300 Mbit and SpeedTest gets to 161 Mbit/s so i guess everything is as it should be. But it's still funny, that the phone, that support Wifi 6 doesn't support 40 Mhz channel on 2 Ghz...

Almost all phones I looked at closely were only capable of single spatial stream (a.k.a. chain) ... but gladly worked with 40MHz wide channels. Which means connection rate 150Mbps (compare that to 144 Mbps for 2 stream 20 MHz). But the end effect is the same, only half of possible throughput ...

has anyone continued to try to port wifi2 to the cAP ac?

Yup, Mikrotik tried. And apparently failed.

Since ROS is closed-source, it's not possible for user to port things ... other than to port device from one position to another.

The closest to what you're questioning is to install 3rd party OS on cAP ac, OpenWRT comes to my mind.

can you run an Controller as container on ROS?
so at least, you would control all you APs from a single spot

can you run an Controller as container on ROS?

Only if you can run ROS in a container ... I don't think you can, so no, you can't run controller as container in ROS. Besides, WW2 CAPsMAN only runs on recent v7.7betas while traditional CAPsMAN runs in v6.

@mkx
traditional capsman runs just fine in ROS7.

You simply can not mix legacy and ww2 radios. It's one or the other.
Don't install ww2-package = legacy radios only
Install ww2-package = ww2 radios only.

I meant a controller for e.g. OpenWRT

has anyone continued to try to port wifi2 to the cAP ac?

is not possible because packages are Cryto-signed, i tryed removing all drivers leaving only ipq4019 and repacking it, the size is reduced from 16.000KB to 2.800KB, small enough to fit on hap ac2 memory but package does not install because is not signed

So we need MikroTik.Has anyone asked them in person whether they could provide the package?

In hap ac2 and Cap ac is IPQ4018 which does not support wave2. So installing the driver from IPQ4019 will not help.
PS ROS mistakenly indicates that 4019 is installed, because it does not distinguish between them.
PSS They say there are instances of HAP ac2 with 4019
https://fccid.io/TV7CPGI5ACD2ND/Interna ... os-4773889
https://fccid.io/TV7RBD52-5ACD2ND/Inter ... os-4494490

In hap ac2 and Cap ac is IPQ4018 which does not support wave2.

...not so sure about that, based on: https://www.qualcomm.com/content/dam/qc ... tbrief.pdf

This is a little bit offtopic here (and might be frowned upon by many) but I installed OpenWRT and it seems to support all the goodies of AC Wave2 (beamforming, .11r, etc) while operating with plenty of free RAM (<50%) and have abundant free space on the ROM (~80% free).
Of course, it's a compact and minimalistic install (base image with a few packages swapped to "full" from "minimal" and stuff to aid band streering), missing plenty of RouterOS exclusive features but still... I belive it should be possible to create an alternate RouterOS package with WiFi wave2 features for hAP ac2 devices (I guess I am not alone who uses these devices as a "dumb AP" and not an advanced router).

Hi, I tried open wrt but couldn't get it to install. I gave up.

I agree with your findings but sadly this hardware is depreciated. It is a shame.

This is a little bit offtopic here (and might be frowned upon by many) but I installed OpenWRT and it seems to support all the goodies of AC Wave2 (beamforming, .11r, etc) while operating with plenty of free RAM (<50%) and have abundant free space on the ROM (~80% free).

Can you tell how you installed it, as it seems it is not straight forward

Thin line, guys...

Solved with RouterOS 7.13

@MikroTik: Thank you very much

Wave 2 cannot be supported on MEMORY deprived devices PERIOD. If you are hoping and praying that its possible you are dreaming in vivid color.

Looks like sometimes dreams do come true.

I would call it solved as soon as VLAN assignment via ACL (in CAPsMAN) is possible again

I would call it solved as soon as VLAN assignment via ACL (in CAPsMAN) is possible again

... and is slimmed down enough to fit that darn 16MB flash comfortably.

Come on.
You're given a cake and you also want the topping and plate, fork and knife to eat it with ?

In principle you are right but I use ACLs for VLAN assignment for WiFi clients (WiFi password based VLAN assignment), so it is mandatory for my use case (and if you read the beta thread of v.13 I dare to say of many others)

I know.
Maybe it will come given some time.

SONY

Soon
Only
Not
Yet