Hi @Labrat44 

Thanks for posting in our business forum.

So if we make that change, there will be someone asking why the WAN port marked on the physical interface can be a LAN port when it does not match what displays on the physical interface?

(This is marked as WAN on the interface.)

Is this necessary? I don't think so. We gotta change the physical interface, we gotta make many materials to prove someone who's not an expert in this to ask where is the WAN port. We gotta send notifications to the users and let them know it is not a bug/glitch. We gotta let them know that this now can be a different port. And we also need to notify the 2B users that this device is not buggy. Too many aspects to consider.

Besides, do you consider the chipset in the device? Usually, their controller is different. What if the fixed WAN does not have the ability? (Assumption)

Get a customized NUC as your router instead, this does not seem to be suitable for your network.

I don't think I can help you with this because it is against the design. You might wanna change this to ask for a new model with X Y Z capability. Not a request on the current model and ask us to change it from the software.

Hi @Labrat44 

Thanks for posting in our business forum.

Labrat44 wrote

  @Clive_A 

 

I didn't make any assumptions, it's simply not my job to consider any of those issues.  You either make something i want and i buy it or you don't and i wont.

 

And i actually DID suggest you do it as a new model, even proposed the new model# be ER8412.

 

Hope there will be a 10G model so it can fill up the gap where we don't have a 10G model. That's gonna be really expensive I think. 10G controller(chipset) is not that cheap.

I will just bring up this as a 10G model instead of a modified version of ER8411. 5-port 10G model?