3
Votes

Treating Omada routers as if they have an integrated virtual switch

This thread has been locked for further replies. You can start a new thread to share your ideas or ask questions.
 
3
Votes

Treating Omada routers as if they have an integrated virtual switch

This thread has been locked for further replies. You can start a new thread to share your ideas or ask questions.
Treating Omada routers as if they have an integrated virtual switch
Treating Omada routers as if they have an integrated virtual switch
2022-05-09 16:35:56
Model: ER605 (TL-R605)  
Hardware Version: V1
Firmware Version: 1.2.0

I might be asking too much, but for smaller networks, it sure would be nice if the router could be treated as a router+switch by Omada.  Now, I don't know the smarts of what's behind the WAN, WAN1/LAN.....LAN ports, but presumably there's enough to be able to treat those ports like a port on say a 2008?  This would allow the implementation of simple architectures like SSID isolation without the need to add additional hardware (and ports that will never get used.

 

In my particular case I have an ER605 and 2008P (so 5 + 8 = 13 ports), and I have a WAN connection, a wired EAP225 outdoor, an internal 235-wall and an OC200...so 4 ports total, all of which could have been handled by the ER605...except there was no way to get Omada SDN to do things like configure the ACLs need to isolate my SSIDs.

<< Paying it forward, one juicy problem at a time... >>
#1
Options
2 Reply
Re:Treating Omada routers as if they have an integrated virtual switch
2022-05-10 05:26:10

  @d0ugmac1 There is one main difference. If you use Controller to manage the Omada router, the router's ports can not change Profile/PVID.

So if you want to put different ports in different subnet, you will need to use it in Standalone mode.

 

But If all you need is to connect the OC200 and the EAP, then yes it's basically the same as switch ports.

#2
Options
Re:Treating Omada routers as if they have an integrated virtual switch
2022-05-10 13:27:23

  @d0ugmac1 

 

Agreed. I am well aware of the limitations of the router's ports under SDN control, that's why I threw out the feature request :)  Many smaller deployments don't need extra switch ports, but have to deal with the extra physical switch box (extra power, cabling, $$) because the SDN 'dumbs down' the router's ports and the required functionality is only envisioned within 'switches'.

<< Paying it forward, one juicy problem at a time... >>
#3
Options