On premise controller. As I am sure you have heard and seen, this is very much on the road map for us. Certainly by the first part of next year. For those that have to have an on premise, we want to hear your feedback on the actual form factor of the appliance we will create to house the controller. Specifically:
In your eyes, should the priority be making the controller look nice in a rack mount situation? Or would rather see it remain as small as possible (without hindering performance and reliability - obviously)?
If you answered as small as possible on #1, would you still like an accessory that allows you to rack mount the controller?
No matter how you answers #1, is the ability to mount the appliance to a wall a must have? Or not necessary?
Is there anything else you would like to see when it comes to the physical form factor of the on-premise controller?
Thanks a million for your feedback! We are excited to hear what you think!
I personally would like to see it as small as possible
Yes, It would be a nice option
For me it’s not necessary
It would be nice to have the option to self install the controller in our own hardware. I would love to see a containerised version of it as well if it is possible.
I think you could offer both. Have a smaller scale model that is as small as possible and passively cooled. Have a larger scale model that is rack mount and designed for the network closet.
Yes. There are a lot of smart homes and home labs with a wall mount rack. Just make sure it is switch depth so it mounts easy in smaller wall mount racks…
If it is as easy as the mounting system you have for the 8 port switch, I would absolutely include it!
Again, it may not be popular opinion, but I really like internal power supply options for any of these things where possible.
Both form factors will be needed. If you can stick to something along the same lines as the VSSL A1 and VSSL A3 respectively in terms of design etc, that would look amazing.
Im good with a Small form factor box, but it would need to conform to the standard rack or “stack” build that has all connectivity in front and possibly only the the power in the back…just makes installs MUCH easier.
3,000,000,000% yes…(MATH)…lol
YES-er…
I think a Single board computer version of this could really drive some of my installs…also not a physical thing…but would be REALLY nice to be able to tunnel traffic to it…rather than just rely on VLAN security…I know I know I have already asked for this…but hey, i gotta ask…hehehehe.
Our customers don’t usually mind if it’s rack mount or not. Usually hidden in the garage or a small data cabinet.
Would still be good to have an option to rack-mount. You could guarantee if you didn’t have the option, it’d be the first question you get from a customer
Don’t see a lot of wall-mounting accessories like controllers etc. but see previous answer.
If it doesn’t add to much cost, a small LED screen, think UCKG2, that displays info like IP address, device count, client count etc. BLE setup as well like your APs and switches.
Also a self-install option without additional hardware seems to be what everyone is after. I understand the hesitation though as it relies on the underlying hardware/software and other vendors have issues with firewall etc.
Although I wouldn’t rack mount it (I’d just put it on a shelf or on top of something else), what might be cool is having one side rack-mountable with an ear. That means all the rest of the space would be empty.
Holes for hanging it to a wall would be a nice to have option.
PoE or DC adapter? Matter support?
I’d still prefer a Linux container or installable in a VM. A physical device seems like a waste.
Completely agree, we run our controllers on two VPS’ in a data centre, no need at all for a physical box, just roll us an installer package and away we go!
I think the general consensus for all of us is “please let us run a VM or container for our controller”. I do have some use cases where a small appliance would help for residential scenarios… but I fully agree with wanting the VM / container options for the majority of installs.
In your eyes, should the priority be making the controller look nice in a rack mount situation? Or would rather see it remain as small as possible (without hindering performance and reliability - - obviously)?
As small as possible imo or should fit in 1U Rack
If you answered as small as possible on #1, would you still like an accessory that allows you to rack mount the controller?
Yes that would be great
No matter how you answers #1, is the ability to mount the appliance to a wall a must have? Or not necessary?
Would be handy, not necessary
Is there anything else you would like to see when it comes to the physical form factor of the on-premise controller?
Preferrably no external Power supply (unless otherwise not possible)
Appliance is nice but also need to be able to run the software on own hardware / VPS etc.
The easiest way to do this is via Docker like UISP from Ubiquiti does, than you won’t have issues with dependencies etc. it will just work also updating is easy. Make sure you have some nice scripts / options for Let’s encrypt etc.
Make connecting to cloud portal optional, do not enforce this.
With docker you can make sure it runs on any platform and have less support issues this way.
For Appliance, like the PFSense (Netgate boxes) can be small to fit on desk, but Rackmount should be an option.
Power supply would be best to have a normal power C13 connector (IMHO) so power supply built in.
Yes appliance will be bigger that way, but its better (IMHO)
I do not want to be investing into a suite of hardware to further invest in Alta labs hardware for a local control.
I do not want to see any duplication of what unifi does with a cloud key as well. If you go down that right then I would not purchase anymore products.
Self-hosted or local unit means it has no need to be connect to the internet 24x7. There needs to be a way for the unit to get updates but not in a manner that requires the software to be on the internet 24x7. I would like to see this self hosted on my own hardware or via docker. If you go docker then transparency has to be included. Anyone should be able to audit the container to share that everything is legit — Share the details of what was put into the docker image. I do not want a docker image that mimic an applicants that has to be online 24x7
If you are going to try to duplicate what Netgate does, then you work into the business model unlimited upgrades and support for the life of the hardware. Also remember that Netgate devices generally check for software upgrades once a day. To give some clear examples, I have my Netgate device from 8 years ago and I am still getting software updates. I have 4 netgate products and all of them are getting software updates even though there are newer models to update replace the older models. I can have any one of these devices offline - no internet for a long time and nothing is broken. Note: when these are offline, I get an alert to allow it to check for an update.
I do not need this to be a separate device for the controller - as a dedicated hardware controller - only that purpose
Answer still no
Not needed as I do not think there needs to be a device just be a controller.
Is there anything else you would like to see when it comes to the physical form factor of the on-premise controller?
I think the software for the controller is a better fit than having a hardware device for it.
Having the hardware switch and/or Access Point are devices that make sense.
To try to make a device be a firewall and/or controller, It seems Alta Labs is chasing after Unifi/Ubiquity than finding its own niche.
