E2E External Controller - One for each network, or one for all networks?

We have discrete cnWave networks (preparing for our 3rd currently). They are each running the onboard E2E controller. We are considering transitioning to the External E2E controller, although I’m not thrilled about the mesh licensing that I read about previously.

If using an External E2E controller, is there any reason to have to run separate External E2E controllers for each completely separate network; or is there any reason to consolidate separate networks into a single External E2E controller?

Thank you, Chris

From my experience, you don’t have to run separate external E2E controllers as long as you can reach the E2E from each POP @ IPv6. Every network will have 1 or more POP’s, and they need to reach the E2E to come online. The major difference between the on-board E2E to ext E2E is that you need to bring the ext E2E into cnMaestro first, then configure the POP to reach the E2E, which will update cnMaestro. As you add DN’s and CN’s, the preferred method is from cnMaestro only.
When networks are whole communities (30 or more DN’s + CN’s for example), I’m recommending an E2E for each major market area for ease of administration.
Hope this helps,
Dave Clelland.

I’m planning our first deployments and had similar questions. The external E2E controller supports up to 500 nodes. So if you’re different networks aren’t going to be that big, I don’t see a reason to have multiple external controllers.

Good news is I was told by Cambium RTM that cnMaestroX is not required to support mesh. They backed off from original plans.

This is my thinking as well. I’m wondering if there is a specific benefit to separating controllers - or a specific benefit to consolidating them.

I suppose another question would be: can you divide up a controller in the future in a straight-forward way?

I was under this impression - but I thought they still had a license for “mesh” for the hosted E2E controller. Do you happen to know if that is lifted now as well?


Do they just need routed IPv6 connectivity to the controller - or L2 connectivity for direct IPv6 to the controller? I thought t was the latter.

How do you feel about small sites? I’m thinking about tunneling a handful of small sites to one E2E controller so they can benefit from the hosted features while not needing an additional VM to manage.

Thank you, Chris

I’m not sure about the E2E controller. I will be speaking to them tomorrow and will ask.

There is no charge for the on-prem E2E controller and no license for mesh. Also, no plan for Cambium hosted E2E. There will be some future network optimization features that will likely have some license costs.

This is good news. I was balancing onboard vs external controller conceptually since I didn’t want to pay for mesh. Now I can just run external anywhere. I’m not concerned about a Cambium hosted E2E, it seems like something you really do want on your own network anyhow.

This is disappointing. I don’t want to wonder if planned features will be for pay or not. I’m buying into the platform, and will continue to buy in and expand it as long as it is well maintained and has new features to maintain and improve function. This equipment is already quite expensive, if anything, I envisioning the pricing will come down, not be increased with license keys and such.

Also, I’m convincing customers to buy into the platform, I don’t want to later have to tell them the new features have an additional cost.