Hi @cgh001 

cgh001 wrote

@Clive_A There was no sarcasm intended in my note, sorry if it came across that way. None of this is directed at you personally, as I know you're doing the best you can with what you have. That said, I stand by my statement that pointing people to the 2 so called "accepted solutions" at the front end of this thread (of which there is really only one proposal - one entry saying "we promise we're going to work on it" and the other entry simply being a qualifier to the first entry that puts an arbitrary version number on the projected update) actually offers no solution at all.

 

My point being: If there's no current solutions, just say so and that you're working hard to achieve one. But don't call THAT a "solution" to the issue, as it's obviously not.

Saying "we're working on a solution" is an update on the situation but it solves nothing for the user. A promise (if we can call it that) is not a solution... no matter how well intended. The user still has to deal with the problem; nothing has changed except perhaps some hope for a fix.

 

As for me/my resolution: TP-Link has left a lot of people in a bad situation for a very long time with the only guidance going from radio silence to 'wait for v5.15 - that's coming... someday.' Too long for me, my ER-605 is... somewhere, I don't even remember what I did with it now; replaced with a Peplink Balance Two. And my OC300 sits either disconnected or ignored since the 605 is an integral part to the Omada management system and promise. Surely one can see how this can be very frustrating for a user in a business environment who depends on their infrastructure being reliable and having a basic feature set that's pretty much considered standard for all such equipement. Which these Omada routers do not, missing this critical feature for literally years now. And I'll be watching how the solution actually does roll out, if/when it actually does to determine how much of what TP-Link equipment is left (a fair amount at the moment) will continue to stay in my infrastructure going forward.

 

Cheers,

C

I truly appreciate your understanding in this matter.  Some posts are taking this to a personal level. It was upset.

I cannot recall if I explained before that this request was considered last year and placed in the request pool but that was not scheduled with a specific version. All the forum mods are aware that this has been long overdue but there is nothing we can do. The dev do not think it would be a super high priority than other features. I don't wanna explain further about this. I think they might think what I think that, however, one simple fact is that for enterprises, the router is supposed to route. Not being an all-in-one. For the fastest DNS query, there should be a dedicated DNS server with at least 4GB RAM for cache. Not a root server but a recursive server. At least, I am trying to not set up everything in just one or with a backup.

(Many features you see now or gain higher priority delaying the development of other features because they have been asked by our contract users or partners who got hundreds of Omada routers. They sure will have higher priority and we have a contract with them.)

(I also foresee a possible new request about the DNS server when it comes out to have a custom URL to update. Hmmm, at least I got this feeling.)

You could say you have waited for this since the first day of ER605 v1 was released(2019) but we never considered this before the pandemic. It was officially considered in 2023.

From the general people's view, they think it is merely a few KB package installations but we need to consider the overall integration and the system resources. It is not like what you have as an open source software like Openwrt where you can freely install and uninstall if you find something wrong or performance throttle. If we move this forward, it's gonna be evaluated carefully.

Due to this matter, in the future, all the responses to requests will be added with the disclaimer. What you proposed does not mean it is gonna be absolutely achieved unless we got a confirmation.

And for the new requests, we will mark if it is in the phase of vote collection.

I literally find people in this post pushing the relationship between the mod and the users to a bad situation. Some are very emotional and exaggerated about the waiting time. We now barely give a positive response to the requests. Only when we have clearly confirmed it. Or we will not disclose any timeline, roadmap and evaluation status. We will also be extremely cautious with the response giving hope or marking it as "Accepted" or "Considered". This would only hurt others. But it is what it is now.

As for now, I only hope the future firmware comes soon. Fix the avid requests on the forum.

Will not explain this anymore as it has been explained clearly.