Top 10 - Call for Feature Requests #1
Votes___By_____________ Feature request
61 - Rich De Cruz - ______ VPN support (router level)
53 - Dan Sobel - ________ USB support. Integrate a UPNP/NAS media server feature for external hard drives.
49 - LA12 Sports Images - Add DDNS
36 - Patrick Wacki - ______ Block specific network traffic
34 - Thiago Vinhas - _____ See the bandwidth usage of the hardwired devices
31 - maj170123 - ________ Bandwidth logging.
31 - Jao van de Lagemaa - Improved handoff.
29 - Jasper Bakker - _____ Show the devices and ports below 'Port forwarding' which device that uses UPnP
29 - Craig Lynam - _______ Guest WiFi in Bridge Mode.
27 - Peter Farrar - _______ Add Smart Queue QoS.
@UBNT-Gunars and colleagues ...
Just curious how you guys are looking against the top10 of "Call for Feature Requests #1"?
Some progress in work?
@jasper-bakker thanks for the awesome compilation!
#1 we already have a VPN in the router for Teleport, but there are no user friendly clients for it
#4 integrating a UniFi type DPI engine is possible, but it won't happen quickly
#5 and #6 are under considration
#7 sounds like 802.11 r/k/v which we've added recently
#9 although possible, it's time consuming to add features to bridge mode, and you can usually make a setup work with NAT mode; maybe we can address some of the reasons people choose to use bridge mode instead
#10 needs further investigation for conflicts with hardware NAT, but should be possible
The other items are under consideration.
@ubnt-gunars Concerning #4, could you work on being able to set different DNS for clients? This could be done at the DNS level.
#5 and #6, is there a way to set this up to offload the logging like SNMP or Netflow? Or a controller for Amplifi?
Obviously it would be best to have all this built in but at least give us some control by offloading these functions until they can be integrated.
@maj170123 I like how we can quickly test new controls in the router setup portal, so maybe SNMP could have the same role with regards to new information. I'll think about the per-client DNS idea.
@ubnt-gunars we wouldn't want to enable QoS with hnat right? Assuming people are using hnat for 1gb service.
@michael-easlick depends on how fast it can be made, and if it's compatible at all.
@michael-easlick Any "smart QoS" will not only effectively disable HW NAT, but also limit available bandwidth to ~100 Mbps. Actually we have played with it. Works good but only up to certain limit. Also, the user needs to specify upper speed limit for upload and download.
Can't you just implement "smart queue" in the web interface and put a warning saying it will restrict bandwidth to 100 Mbps max?
It's really the only thing that is stopping AmpliFi from being perfect for me. I've been tempted to go back to an Edgerouter X just to get smart queue again.