Port/Interface naming inconsistencies in the Omada UX
While it's not the end of the world, some of the naming is inconsistent between pages in the UX and also with the physical device:
In the Settings, for Wired Networks -> Internet
Not terrible, but the numbering doesn't match.
[Edit: scratch that. It's just that the physical LAN port is omitted because it's not a valid option here]
While in Wired Networks -> LAN
Here, the numbers match but the names don't. In my opinion, this one is confusing (though less confusing than the fact that VLAN assignment is done here for the router ports).
The physical device shows WAN (1), WAN/LAN (2), WAN/LAN (3), WAN/LAN (4) - above (below), at least on my ER605 v1.
[Edit: scratch that too. On this screen, the WAN port is omitted since it's not an option.
The ER605 has 5 ports (as indicated in the name) so the mapping to physical is:
WAN (Port 1), WAN/LAN1 (Port 2), WAN/LAN2 (Port 3), WAN/LAN3 (Port 4), LAN (Port 5)
I got thrown off by the omissions]
Hi @EricPerl
This is awared. However, ER605 v1 is end of life, I am afraid there will be no update.
To be clear, I marked the corresponding port numbers for your reference:
Hi @EricPerl
This is awared. However, ER605 v1 is end of life, I am afraid there will be no update.
To be clear, I marked the corresponding port numbers for your reference:
Hi @Vincent-TP ,
This is embarrassing, the ER605 indeed has 5 ports, as implied by its name.
I updated my post without removing the original content (my mistakes 🤪).
I got thrown off by the omitted ports on each screen.
I actually had taken a picture but my router is not very accessible and cables hid the rightmost port...
I now understand the labeling in the UX.
IMO, you're not doing yourself a favor with numbering ports 1 to 5 when they don't all have the same purpose.
I realize my router is old but I checked pictures of more recent models on Amazon and the labeling is all over the place with the SFP ports on top of it.
The fix would have been in the UX. The physical print on each model is what it is, even for current model.
The UX is actually reasonable for my model. I obviously can't comment on the others.
In any case, you can close this thread...