@tokenize just sell your Omada stuff and quit whining. It's a 70$ router, I'd hardly call that "enterprise". You want enterprise gear, go buy Cisco and get your CCNA cert. Omada is advertised for small and medium size businsess, not large enterprises. I switched from Ubiquity to Omada and I'm glad I did, had nightmare experience with them and their support. If it's not for you, move on. You have 17 posts in this thread and maybe 1 of them is useful.

Cheers!

  @dn828 Don't you think a built in DNS server is a basic feature in a medium sized business network? It's because of "whinning" that customers normally get what they paid for. This feature request, which was accepted for ER605, has been accepted months ago. How can you just accept that they now are saying it won't be implemented? If you're happy with TP Link, fine, but they don't need a defense lawyer or fanboys. My whinning is trying to get you a basic feature in case you hadn't noticed.

@tokenize again it's a 70$ router, you can go buy a consumer router at Best Buy for 3x that. If you want enterprise gear, go buy it. If a small or medium size business needs local DNS it's trival to setup on a device that costs less 40$. Your whining isn't convincing anyone at TP-Link to do anything any faster I assure you. They are going to implement it in the next controller verison as they said, just not for EOL gear. Most enterprises run their own DNS server, if you actually knew anything about enterprise networking you would know this https://superuser.com/a/1715364. You want local DNS for your house, you don't need it. If you actually needed it, you would quit whining and just use pi-hole, next-dns, core-dns, or something else. You aren't gonna get it on your V1 ER605 router as stated, so get over it. TP-Link EOL policy says you can contact them for a replacement, so maybe you can get a new 70$ router for a discount or maybe if you whine enough for free. Otherwise sell it and get your Ubiquity gear like you have been saying you're going to. You've spent more time & energy here than the router is worth, IDK about you, but my time is $. 

  @dn828 Hi, I'm OK with an external DNS server (for now at least), but ... how to get, for example, PiHole to retrieve and use the DHCP items from Omada? Or - do I also need to have PiHole be the DHCP server on the network?

Thanks!

  @dn828 I'm already running a separate DNS server, that's not the point. But the goal of having Omada (lets call it a prosumer product then since, you're right, it's indeed not enterprise level) is to have everything centralized in one place. In addition, I want to be able to resolve local hostnames. For now I'm using pihole as a DHCP server as a workaround. But again, I bought a complete Omada system in an effort to centralize everything in one place. This thread is full of people asking for this.

You, as a client, should be on my side. TP Link is a major corporation with a big engineering team which would be able to implement this in a heartbeat.

  @arrmo you can add manual local dns entries in pi-hole to point a hostname to a ip address, or this use this super helpful coredns plugin someone made to fetch the hostnames from the omada router via their API. https://github.com/dougbw/coredns_omada. I'm running coredns with that plugin and pi-hole on the same raspberry-pi and it works great. 

  @tokenize I am on your side, I commented one time and said this would be awesome. I'm also a software engineer and I understand that I bought a 70$ router that has ACL, VLANS, Multi Wan failover/load balancing, VPN, and a myraid of other features you won't find in that 300$ Asus router from Best Buy. I pick and choose my battles, and while as frustrating as not having local DNS out of the box is, it's a 70$ router that has a pile of features that you won't find in other routers 3x it's cost. 

  @dn828 Thanks for the info! I do have coredns set up ... but I find it pseudo-often hangs, so then I lose local DNS. Not sure why. Restarting fixes it, but a pain when it goes down of cousre.

  @dn828 You are completely missing the point. I am a software developer, too, and by mixing hardware you lose the main reason into buying Omada, namely being able to separate configuration from hardware in software. It's like I said, the horse in front of the car, it will move, but it is a maintenance nightmare. Omada is not marketed for its features, but as a maintenance solution. So it is not about whining or picking your battles as you said, its about buying into a promise and having financial/timely damage. How would you feel, when you buy into - let's Jira, or Atlassian software in general (so you're buying into a ecosystem for productivity) - then you somehow can expect to receive email notifications, right? And then you buy it, you onboard everybody just to find out there is no way to send emails. Of course you can "pick your battle" and hack into Atlassian software, but who wants to maintain this stuff everytime Atlassian updates their software? Do you get it now?

Thumbs up, to all who request local dns.
pi hole, er-x... are only workarounds. Omada is a sdn. local dns should be a basic feature of this sdn.
If we have to use third party hardware to have local dns, we could completely move away from omada. But that should truly not be the goal. We want to use Omada as a whole ecosystem without further Hardware of other vendors.

Suggestions to use Cisco and so on are not helpful for many people. Cisco has another user group with a higher budget. If we use Cisco, we possibly don't use Omada either. But that's not the point. Omada should contain all basic features. And if local DNS wasn't necessary, users wouldn't have requested it.

To the people who want to tell us, that local dns on Omada Router is not necessary: You don't have to use it (or use it by other hardware). I'm also not saying mDNS service isn't necessary just because I don't need it. But others need it, and that's ok and good. And it is the same with local dns. One people need it (out of one box), others not.

The discussion about local dns went its way on er605. But the more costly routers don't have local dns either, or do they? So price is not the reason. I guess it is (was) a business decision of TP-Link. And I hope they not only changed this decision for the request on er605.

So i am glad that Clive_A said, local dns is on the road.
And it is understandable that despite Clive_A's announcement, the discussion continues because TP-Link's (Product-Managers, Devs) behavior has lost some trust for many people in the past.
So let's be optimistic until the happy end and hope that TP-Link fulfills promises ;-)