@Pablo_PL 

I agree with you, I struggle with the same thing.

  @Pablo_PL 

 

Agreed

 

But, i think they set the limits low to function for the "least capable" switches without creating strange issues where a low end switch (like SG2008) cant process or store as many rules as a higher end switch (like SG3452)

 

However, having operated a few of their switches in standalone mode before i went to controller, i never got to a point where a switch was "full" regarding rules so.......not sure why the restrictive choice on controller.

 

 

  @ProSumerTester having the same issue. I hear it's a hardware limitation. I'm using the OC300 and that was the latest and greatest before OC400 showed up. Anybody knows if that one has a higher limit? 

 

I guess what I'm saying here in this thread is, if this is a hardware limit, how come there isn't a hardware that is powerful enough to have a higher limit???

Make hardware that has a higher limit. Every problem is about money. Tell me how much?

  @GRL @Vincent-TP 

In this case, it appears that software team at TP-Link is lazy. The way Cisco and even ubiquity hardware deals with this is that as long as you're running capable hardware it allows for higher limits. As soon as you try to adopt a less capable switch only THEN do you get that warning assuming you already setup more IP groups. And if not, when you do try to setup more than allowed, it should specify the device(s) limiting you so you can replace them with more capable type.