Hi @Labrat44 

Thanks for posting in our business forum.

So if we make that change, there will be someone asking why the WAN port marked on the physical interface can be a LAN port when it does not match what displays on the physical interface?

(This is marked as WAN on the interface.)

Is this necessary? I don't think so. We gotta change the physical interface, we gotta make many materials to prove someone who's not an expert in this to ask where is the WAN port. We gotta send notifications to the users and let them know it is not a bug/glitch. We gotta let them know that this now can be a different port. And we also need to notify the 2B users that this device is not buggy. Too many aspects to consider.

Besides, do you consider the chipset in the device? Usually, their controller is different. What if the fixed WAN does not have the ability? (Assumption)

Get a customized NUC as your router instead, this does not seem to be suitable for your network.

I don't think I can help you with this because it is against the design. You might wanna change this to ask for a new model with X Y Z capability. Not a request on the current model and ask us to change it from the software.

Hi @Labrat44 

Thanks for posting in our business forum.

Labrat44 wrote

  @Clive_A 

 

I didn't make any assumptions, it's simply not my job to consider any of those issues.  You either make something i want and i buy it or you don't and i wont.

 

And i actually DID suggest you do it as a new model, even proposed the new model# be ER8412.

 

Hope there will be a 10G model so it can fill up the gap where we don't have a 10G model. That's gonna be really expensive I think. 10G controller(chipset) is not that cheap.

I will just bring up this as a 10G model instead of a modified version of ER8411. 5-port 10G model?

Hi @L0st 

L0st wrote

That comment was borderline rude and kinda ridiculous if professional users can't understand they have turned a port into a lan instead of a Wan because the label says Wan is ludacris.  The real reason they won't is in the explanation I has 1 10gbe uplink for lan for the sole purpose of requiring another piece of equipment.... more money when the use case is there for 10g to desktop and nas... but to do that fork out another 400$ why would they do that to make a better value for a customer. So the real answer to the op is corporate greed the firmware update would lose the company 400$ to 2b users? Further reading this response from clive_a when I wondered the same thing before purchasing has cost tplink a customer I will be migrating all my equipment from tp link to the competition .......@Clive_A

Number one, it is your choice to switch any vendor if a product cannot meet your expectations or growing needs. The thing is, ER8411 was advertised as this and you read the specs and purchased it with self-awareness.

The request is coming up later on when your needs grow. You are free to choose the products you would like to use to meet your growing needs.

Number two, it's a discussion from the point of the product. Denying your requests is considered as rude? So, every request you make should be satisfied without proper reasoning and discussion? That's how the world works? I don't wanna discuss how the world works. But with some basic logic?

(I am open and willing to discuss if you have proper reasoning. This is kind of discouraging by your grudge. If you are threatening me, or you find what I replied/discussed is rude, I can shut my mouth and don't have to discuss or give you active feedback. Just vote for it. I don't have to explain anything or discuss it with you as it is a waste of time. You are merely expecting someone to please you.)

Number three, if you think it costs a customer, then you don't even have to @ me. That's your choice to get higher-end products. We grow as well step by step with more and more products to meet different needs and targeted groups.

Number four, you don't seem to understand my point. I understand what you and others mean but the product has been designed to be 10G uplink and 10G down(or interchangeable). That's what we call the first 10G product we have.

You are encouraged to ask for a new product instead of forcing us to change the firmware which is against the marker on the interface. It's already there as a WAN physically printed and even if this is gonna be a change, that'll be a revision like ER8411 V2 with the whole new printed interface on the port as WAN/LAN. That's been explicitly printed as WAN, and now if your firmware changed this, that's a contradiction in a product that has been out there for a year. I don't think a rational PM would agree with such a change.

It should be at least a hardware revision.

Five, you are merely thinking for your own good, which I understand, and threatening me. Not from the overview or product. We don't have to discuss this anymore if you bear a grudge.

As you are migrating to another competitor, ask something similar to this if they have a physically printed 10G as WAN, and you ask them to change it to WAN/LAN to satisfy what you expect it to be. I am open to your feedback if you can make that happen. I will surely notify the PM to review the other vendor's action and see if we should evaluate the necessity of a further change.

Hi @L0st 

Thanks for posting in our business forum.

L0st wrote

  @Clive_A   thank you for your response! That was much more professional! Your first response to the op was condescending and borderline rude maybe just a bad day I don't know. It was a response that made the decision up to migrate to other gear and maybe others after reading it. There have been no threat made to you. Back to the equipment firmware is just software from a user side how easy is it to simply put a warning on that interface that says "warning are you sue you want to change the 10gbe Wan to lan" please confirm.  Which would make 1 device much more versatile for content creators and home power users that already have racks without having to implement another device for the user or tplink. Now that being said if hardware wasn't capable of it then understandable but why lock a customer out of making thr choice is my concern. I mean every other port is switchable?

If you can understand my point and how things work, that'd be better. We have some common grounds.

Back to the real question, I consulted with the team that this is a hardware limitation on the chip. Something I thought originally. (It could be an independent port with hardware acceleration so it cannot be changed.) Not gonna be possible to change that from the software level.

About the part that could sound condescending, I actually abandoned and stopped buying any of the routers for the 10G setup unless I have to use the software and the integration. I have a server(actually a computer but not NUC) with the PCIE board to expand the 10G ports. That'd be a more pro way to get things done if you have more demanding requirements.

It sounds it but that's the truth. I don't have a server room to place a noisy server yet but in the future, I probably get a server from a pro vendor with a 10G switch or other brands. I used to use routers but when your needs grow, you probably find what's best for you. I can understand that one integrated solution is helpful but what's really urgent is to meet your real needs and make it flow.

And a product from its project phase to the announcement and landing would be some time.

I mean the 10G product(router) now only got this one. A full 10G model could be something the future Omada considers based on the market feedback.

I think request a full-10G-ready router should be something you are after. That should address everyone's needs in this thread.

AFAIK, there is no roadmap for a full-10G-ready router. That'll be some time as the market team collects the feedback. After the submission, it'll take some time as well to find a proper scheme for 10G.

(10G model would also cost more because of the hardware prime cost. In this situation, a workaround would be beneficial to get a 10G switch to cascade.)