Manage SSIDs with multiple APs

[vince122]

Is there an existing issue for this?

• I have searched the existing open and closed issues

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe

No problem

Describe the solution you'd like

Would it be possible to improve the Network map against Wifi, like this :

I have multiple AP, each access point is broadcasting multiple SSID, which could be common to other access points

Like this :
SSID A : AP1, AP2, AP3
SSID B : AP1, AP3

Then, some network assets are connected to SSID A or SSID B, whatever the AP.

Would it be possible to improve the devices infos / network map to be able to display each network asset, connected to each SSID, whatever the AP behind this SSID ?

Describe alternatives you've considered

I was thinking on creating a Dummy device, with the SSID associated

Anything else?

Great tool :)

Am I willing to test this? 🧪

• I will do my best to test this feature on the netlertx-dev image when requested within 48h and report bugs to help deliver a great user experience for everyone and not to break existing installations.

Can I help implement this? 👩‍💻👨‍💻

• Yes
• No

[jokob-sk]

Hi @vince122 ,

thanks for the suggestion. Could you please sketch out a solution - not sure how this would look visually.

Thanks in advance!
PS. Not yet decided if I implement this - need to see the complexity of implementing this and the value.

[FlyingToto]

not sure how easy it would be but what about changing the curent view
from:

• for wireless connections -> wifi symbol then device name
• for wired connections -> ehternet port symbol overwritten with port number then device name

to:

• for wireless connections -> wifi symbol , then SSID, then device name
• for wired connections -> ehternet port symbol, then with port number then device name

[jokob-sk]

Thanks @FlyingToto - it's not difficult, just thinking that this would stretch the width of the diagram even more. Trying to figure out if that's an issue - like should I reduce the width or height to display information better. Maybe I'm overthinking it...

[jokob-sk]

no reply from OP (@vince122) on implementation details - closing for now