Does put the LR in UTR. (Edit to add 2, below)

Haven’t had a chance to test it yet, but thought some of y’all might appreciate the pics. iPhone 17pro Max and business card for size comparison. Yes, it’s thicker than the UTR but still pocketable.

I love the little UTR but the range is very limiting for anything bigger than a hotel room. I’m usually in AirBnBs or camping. I was about to pick up a Swiss Army knife to boost the UTR or my Starlink Mini so this came out at the perfect time.

I’ll test it at my apartment building’s pool. We have wifi on the roof, but only inside and it won’t stretch to the loungers well enough to do any work. I hope this big antenna eliminates the need for me to put my Starlink on a neighboring lounger. Yeah, I work remote from a pool, or anywhere lol

Edit to add: the UI App lets me see and manage both UTRs. It seems to think which ever one I’m not actively connected to is new, but when I click on it/switch the configs are still live and saved. Makes me think the configuration lives on the UTR itself and not the gateway. TBD on if they both teleport at the same time.

Edit to add 2: I tested the LR on my apartment buildings rooftop pool area. I’m in a condensed downtown area. I connected the UTR-LR to a neighboring buildings open wifi (at least 50M from nearest AP). The UTR-LR was receiving the wifi at an excellent -56dbm while my iPhone was getting poor and slow -75 to -85 dbm.

The LRs network covered the entire outdoor pool area. Mostly line of sight. However, let’s say I was working remote and wanted to talk while walking around, I would’ve had plenty of range. I didn’t see any drop in signal quality until I went behind a concrete wall. It certainly covered more than I expected and much more than the base UTR.

The LR uplinked to the open WiFi with no hiccups. The overall experience has been seamless. I can’t speak too much to max speed. On the open WiFi I tested it looked like download was limited to 50mb/s (bottlenecked by the neighboring network) but upload was topping out around 100.

I have a USW Flex that has been in service for a little over a year. Suddenly the PoE devices connected to the switch all when offline. I am unable to get the ports to provide power anymore. The switch is powered by the 60w PoE adapter that I purchased with the switch. There used to be settings in the controller to tell the switch that it is using the 60w power brick but it seems like all of that has been removed from the interface.

Here are things I tried:

I updated my controller from an older version running the legacy network application to the new Unifi OS server. All the tutorials online refer to being able to switch the legacy GUI to be able to change the setting. Before updating the controller though there was a message about

"Forgot" the switch and re-adopted

Factory reset the switch.

Tried booting with no PoE devices plugged in.

Moved the switch to right next to the power adapter to eliminate cable issues.

SSH command shows this information:

USW-Flex-US.7.5.10# swctrl poe show

Total Power Limit(mW): 0

Port OpMode HpMode PwrLimit Class PoEPwr PwrGood Power(W) Voltage(V) Current(mA)

(mW)

---- ------ ------------ -------- ------- ------ ------- -------- ---------- -----------

[error] Can't get port 2 poe info!

[error] Can't get port 3 poe info!

[error] Can't get port 4 poe info!

[error] Can't get port 5 poe info!

I'm not sure at this point if the switch has failed or if it is just thinking it doesn't have the power budget due to software issues and not being able to select the power supply in the new controller. It doesn't show anything in the controller about PoE load or available power budget like my other switches. Any help would be appreciated.

I have a SAMBA domain controller that would like to check the time a local time server (same happens when trying Google, 8.8.8.8) but keeps getting blocked. I know I can make a rule to allow it, but is there any risk to that?

"A network intrusion attempt from SERVER1 to XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX has been detected and blocked...to 8.8.8.8"

Full Message:

CEF:0|Ubiquiti|UniFi Network|10.5.67|201|Threat Detected and Blocked|9|UNIFIcategory=Security UNIFIhost=APP Unifi Network UNIFIdeviceMac=xxxxxxxxxxxxx UNIFIdeviceName=APP Unifi Network UNIFIdeviceModel=UniFi Dream Machine PRO SE UNIFIdeviceIp=SERVERIP UNIFIdeviceVersion=5.1.26 dst=192.XXX.XXX.XXX UNIFIsrcClientAlias=DOMAINCONTROLLER_IP UNIFIsrcClientMac=XXXXXXXX UNIFIsrcClientModel=VMWare ESXi UNIFIutcTime=2026-08-12T21:18:59.628Z msg=A network intrusion attempt from SERVER1 to DOMAINCONTROLLER_IP has been detected and blocked.

In Unifi Site Manager, I can see an aggregate of high and critical alerts from my various Ubiquiti firewalls, but certain of them are grayed out, and a handful are grayed out with a note that says the owner needs to enable logging. The latter situation seems obvious, but what about all the other grayed out devices on which I am definitely the owner, and can otherwise see the logs if I go to their individual site pages. What am I missing?

As title states… have a shop outside of a main campus and am wondering if I can get away with just a UDM SE for multicast traffic or if I need a second switch?

I'm new to using vlans, and am trying to separate my work-computer from the rest of my stuff as my first experience. My intention is to setup additional vlans later on.

I have my work-computer plugged into a U6-IW. I created a new network via Settings -> Networks -> Create New, and then found my work computer in the Client Devices tab and set the Virtual Network Override option to the new network that I made.

I'm aware that *generally* speaking, it's desired to tag the physical ethernet port with the vlan that you're interested in, so that a change in MAC address doesn't invalidate your settings. I just did this to try things out.

I was pretty confused when that my work-computer does get a DHCP lease for the right network, but it has no connectivity to anything.

Only once I changed the physical ethernet port that its connected to to the vlan in question do I get connectivity. Changing the OTHER ports on the same U6-IW doesn't fix it. It has to be the SPECIFIC port that the work-computer is attached to.

Notably, this doesn't appear to be impacting things on *OTHER* switch models. For example, i have several (old) US 8 PoE 150W units, none of which appear to have the same behavior. I've left all of their ports alone, and configured the "Virtual Network Override" for some hardwired devices attached to them just to see what the behavior would be. No problems there.

What's confusing me on this is that the tooltip for Tagged VLAN Management says

Tagged ports can carry multiple VLANs and are used for traffic tagged with a VLAN ID.
With Allow All, configured VLANs are automatically tagged on this port. Tagged traffic matching a non-existent VLAN ID is dropped.
VLAN Management can be customized to only tag specific VLANs or block all.

Changing the port on the U6-IW to Allow All, Block All, or Custom (and selecting the vlan in question) all have no impact on connectivity.

I used an AI programming tool (Specifically, Kiro) to do a little bit of digging into this using the console's rest API and it is inferring that the uplink port on the U6-IW is set to block all vlans except the "native" one unless I specifically change one of the port's native vlans. I'm not sure I believe it, given the problem persists if i change the native vlan of one of the other ports.

Anyway, is this a hardware limitation of the U6-IW, a software bug, or am I simply doing it wrong?