controller oc 400 and multiple ips for discover and adopt switches

controller oc 400 and multiple ips for discover and adopt switches

controller oc 400 and multiple ips for discover and adopt switches
controller oc 400 and multiple ips for discover and adopt switches
Thursday - last edited Friday
Model: OC400  
Hardware Version: V1
Firmware Version: 1.6.2 Build 20250110 Rel.74413

hi, why you dont add configurable ports on sites?
Controller oc400 has 4 rj45 and 2sfp+ and why need use routing firewalls policy to roks controller with multiple real network?
i have almost 100 switches on 4 reals network and almost 60 vlans in 2 buildings, why i cant chose port 1 on controller to main mgm with login and rest port sign to sietes with signed static ips? that easy bonus on settings seriesly can help with my job.
example:
lan port 1 - 192.168.W.0/24 - mgm contoller - connected to my server network
lan port 2- 192.168.X.0/24  -sign to site A - connected to my real lan network switches for guest vlans, only to discover and adopt devices
lan port3 - 192.168.Y.0/24- sign to site b  - connected to my real lan network switches for workers vlans, only to discover and adopt devices
lan port4 -192.168.Z.0/24 - sign to site c- conected to ipsec network, only to discover and adopt devices
each networks has same mgm vlan for switches.

here please add possible settings real lan port controller with ips.

Why oc 400has 4 port lan when i still use one directly conected to my router and other device must make huge work when that can be so easy?

  0      
  0      
#1
Options
1 Accepted Solution
Re:controller oc 400 and multiple ips for discover and adopt switches-Solution
Friday - last edited Friday

Hi  @mati1990 

 

Thank you for your detailed feedback regarding the OC400 controller’s port configuration. We truly appreciate your insights, as they help us improve our products to better meet real-world deployment needs.

 

The OC400’s four RJ45 and two SFP+ ports are designed to operate within a unified management domain by default. This approach was chosen for:

  • Simplified Deployment: Most users manage their networks through a single control plane (VLAN or subnet), reducing complexity in initial setup.
  • Scalability: Relying on routing/firewall policies (rather than port-level isolation) allows greater flexibility when expanding networks or reallocating IP spaces.
  • Software Architecture: The current firmware treats physical ports as part of a shared switching fabric, not as independent interfaces with dedicated subnets.
  • Risk Mitigation: Enforcing strict port isolation could lead to misconfigurations (e.g., overlapping subnets) or disrupt controller-switch communication in certain topologies.

 

 

In the meantime, you can start a new thread under Requests & Suggestions block to gather more voters. 

How to Submit Requests & Suggestions Effectively

Recommended Solution
  0  
  0  
#3
Options
2 Reply
Re:controller oc 400 and multiple ips for discover and adopt switches
Thursday

  @mati1990 

 

I dont think this is possible.

 

I think the ports are there merely as a convienience and to act as a mini extra switch

 

The probably do have full control of the internal switch chip, so maybe one day that could do that, but only if it has an embedded management core, which it may not.

Main: ER8411 x1, SG3428X x1, SG3452 x1, SG2428LP x1, SG3210 x1, SG2218P x1, SG2008P x1, ES205G x2, EAP650 x6 Remotes: ER605 v2 x3, SG2008P x2, EAP650 x2 VPN Server: ER7206 v2 Controller: OC300
  1  
  1  
#2
Options
Re:controller oc 400 and multiple ips for discover and adopt switches-Solution
Friday - last edited Friday

Hi  @mati1990 

 

Thank you for your detailed feedback regarding the OC400 controller’s port configuration. We truly appreciate your insights, as they help us improve our products to better meet real-world deployment needs.

 

The OC400’s four RJ45 and two SFP+ ports are designed to operate within a unified management domain by default. This approach was chosen for:

  • Simplified Deployment: Most users manage their networks through a single control plane (VLAN or subnet), reducing complexity in initial setup.
  • Scalability: Relying on routing/firewall policies (rather than port-level isolation) allows greater flexibility when expanding networks or reallocating IP spaces.
  • Software Architecture: The current firmware treats physical ports as part of a shared switching fabric, not as independent interfaces with dedicated subnets.
  • Risk Mitigation: Enforcing strict port isolation could lead to misconfigurations (e.g., overlapping subnets) or disrupt controller-switch communication in certain topologies.

 

 

In the meantime, you can start a new thread under Requests & Suggestions block to gather more voters. 

How to Submit Requests & Suggestions Effectively

Recommended Solution
  0  
  0  
#3
Options