EDIT

stian wrote

I am also looking for this, and was surprised that it is not currently supported.

There are some users requesting the feature in different threads.

Is it possible to get a statement from TP-link about whether this is at least considered for implementation? If not, I would probably have to dig up my Ubiquity router again or find some other solution :(

 

  @stian 

Technitium DNS/DHCP open source software, authoritative DNS server. Lightweight & very adaptive. I run it as a docker container on a QNAP NAS but will run in any lightweight hardware.

  @Smok Thanks for the tip. My main concern is that if I'm going to manage my clients in Omada, I would like it to be a single point of truth and not having to book keep the clients twice (i. e. set name and static IP in Omada, set the same IP and hostname in separate DNS server). That was the whole point of going for a SDN solution.

EDIT

  @Smok Thank you, but mDNS is a different feature.

  @Smok 

This lack of embedded DNS solution for local network is indeed a big gap in otherwise cool Omada SDN functionality - if Omada SDN wants to be a complete integrated network solution for any users except small home users who do not have any local servers in their network. Also the lack of local DNS creates the known issues that clients in the Omada GUI are displayed by their MAC address which is not very useful for administrators.

Maybe the most natural place for a small DNS server daemon location would be the Omada controller itself ? Being a Linux-based system it should be easy do add DNS function to it ? At least it should be easier than to add DNS on the Gateway (with it's limited Busybox and CPU power/functionality). Also many Omada users do not use a TP-Link gateway/router - but ALL Omada users have the Controller.
 

If there would be a concern for the controller CPU and memory scalability caused by this added DNS daemon - then it should be easy to document the requirements for local DNS in the Release Notes or in some Deployment guide - for example that for DNS there is a certain limit of DNS client per controller type (OC200, OC300 etc) or that DNS requires a local controller at the site etc. This way customers can make informed decisions if and how to use the local DNS feature.

EDIT

  @btx  So what is the point that you are making and why posting it here ? This is not an architecture/design disussion but a feature request discussion. Local DNS feature is missing from Omada SDN and that prevents it to be a complete network-in-a-box solution. Local DNS would be totally appropriate for an SDN network solution. Therefore me and many others are suggesting to include local DNS feature into Omada.

Then it's up to the user to decide if to use it or if to use something else for that piece of the infrastructure - as it's also true with many other parts and features of the Omada SDN.

From what you wrote it's unclear if you are for including it or against - or if you are arguing towards some completely different debate, on a different subject.

My suggestion to TP-Link remains the same - to include some lightweight DNS resolver into Omada SDN. Many other commenters seems to be supporting this as well.

EDIT