Hi @drulia

drulia wrote

  @Clive_A , you said it yourself, a few switches, not couple. This was such a blow to me today when I discovered, after getting a switch for CCTV cameras, that I cannot add a third switch. And it's not even displayed anywhere that I'm at the limit, so I can't discover this before I purchase, unpack, and set it all up.

 

@MC20 is certainly not alone in needing at least a third switch and/or the ability to choose between more switching for the price of fewer EAP devices. It's not like resources for a switch are being used if there are no switches connected. Also, your new SG2005P-PD, while brilliant for outdoor use, only has 4 outputs and still counts as a full switch. I have 2 of them and one has to be managed separately from its own UI, which is quite frustrating.

 

Providing the option to choose would prevent users like me from feeling like fools for investing in a setup that places unnecessary roadblocks.

 

Additionally, your suggested OC400 is like triple the price and supports 200 switches. That’s two orders of magnitude difference. I don't feel like you are being sincere with such a suggestion.

First, I am not very interested in replying to your message because seeing your way of replying to this and being a word police. Do you have to?

I have stated the exact number of the device can control and I use "few" to refer to that. This is clear under the context of that reply which I have stated the exact number unequivocally.

Second, when you get your hands on the product, on the controller settings page, you will see the limit of the switch you can adopt. If that does not fit your network when you have more Omada switches, you can return it within the return window (depending on your retailer policy) and get a router + OC setup.

Third, from the OC200, and OC300 to the latest OC400, I am explaining the situation if you have a much bigger network, you should consider the low to high-end models. And you should consider the performance redundancy and not get throttled.

I am saying this based on that you are aware that the Omada solution is various and has multiple products. Our technical support team, phone, chat or email can answer your questions about pre-sale questions.

A simple query would solve most problems and they can do a great job explaining the different ways to manage the products, free vs paid and their advantages.

I am not gonna argue with you over this topic when you didn't read it under the context while I was explaining the situation and giving the reason for the product design.

drulia wrote

  @MC20 

 

Agree, any solution would be welcome that would avoid turning ER7212PC into e-waste.

 

  @Clive_A 
Question, if it is really about hardware limitation, can ER7212PC v1.0 be adopted by OC200 and basically turned into router?

The controller cannot be disabled. So it is a built-in controller 3-in-1 device. That's the product design and what we target when this is projected. The product was not designed for larger networks.

Two minimal 8-port switches, Omada, and the 11 (including SFP, PoE, Gig RJ45) ports on this router. 8+8+11=27. Mostly good for small businesses like stores and cafes and some home users seeking a simple setup. 

For anything larger and needing more performance, or without limits, our support would also recommend a router + OC setup. Unless you specify you need an all-in-one solution.

  @MC20 

MC20 wrote

  @drulia @Clive_A 

at least give us the possibility to enable a new switch with a license or an extension; 2 is too limiting. I don't think the hardware doesn't handle at least 4 switches which could be the correct limit

As I have explained, I understand what you asked for but the reason has been explained.

I am not gonna argue with you on the chipset. I am saying the product will carry out the routing, controller, and switch, which will take up a lot of computation already. And this is a dual-core CPU device. The system has not opened up to 3 or more. I don't deny someday in the future that the ER7212PC's controller version will be optimized in the future(because we are optimizing the SDNC and adding more features). But overall, at this moment, the system does not open the limit for the sake of the performance redundancy.

The paid license is not a proper term to describe the built-in Controller(free). That's proprietary for the CBC(paid). Cloud-based Controller. I will not further explain that as it is against the free version idea.

And, think if we add that, isn't that against our "free idea"? That'll bring trouble definitely. Correct? Not from you but from other users thinking we are betraying them and charging people after they get used to it. That's more unethical, isn't t?

I can feedback on this but I can let you know that this might be a small chance request. Repeat what I am gonna send: 3-4 switch support without any sort of fees.