Mattermost Federation

It would be pretty nice if Mattermost had federation support like some other softwares like Matrix and Rocketchat.

We could use DNS SRV records for such things, which seems to be what the other softwares mentioned above use.


Do you have experience with Can you tell us about it from a usability / manageability perspective? I’ve been eyeing this as a replacement for our current xmpp setup because the users want something more like slack

I would love to see such features implemented. Mattermost gets a lot more popular in academia due to the recent price plan change by Slack. This feature will allow different research groups to interconnect, exchange information, and discuss together. It would be useful for creating joint channels by people from different servers and for inviting guests for a short chat.

Right now I have to apply for an account for each mattermost server to be able to join, or issue an account for whoever I’d like to invite to my team and persuade them to use it

Hi @ChenSun-Phys ,

please raise your voice on this feature request at - if it gets enough votes, it will be worked on.
For the time being I think your only options are shared channels (enterprise feature) or matterbridge.

Hi thanks a lot for the reply and bringing up the shared channels feature. That’s actually what I need. I saw that on Shared channels (experimental) — Mattermost documentation it’s listed as a feature for both Enterprise and Professional plans, but on the other page Experimental configuration settings — Mattermost documentation it’s Enterprise-only. Do you know which on it is?

From what I know, this is an enterprise feature, the comparison also lists it as an enterprise feature:

I’ve filed a PR to update the documentation for further discussion.

So, small update on this:

  • is deprecating their own federation system in favor of Matrix federation, which means that you need at least 8Gb RAM to run and Matrix, which for the most hobbyists is a no go, because VPS prices keep increasing and usually we don’t make money out of this.
  • The request for federation already exists on this uservoice (since 2015, apparently…).
  • It would be preferable if we could have native S2S support instead using third party services that require additional setup.
  • I can probably open a feature request on, but since it already exists in the uservoice forum, I don’t think it’s necessary to duplicate requests, unless it should be opened there.

Thanks for the update, I’m afraid that there are currently no plans to implement federation, but roadmaps are being reworked currently, so that might change. If I hear of something related to that, I’ll let you know.