ER605 v2.3.0 – LAN-to-LAN Traffic Shows WAN IP When Port Forwarding Enabled

Device/Versions:
-
Router: ER605 v2, upgraded from firmware 2.2.6 → 2.3.0
-
APs: EAP670, upgraded from 1.0.4 → 1.1.1
-
Controller: OC 200 2.0, 5.15.24.21
Summary of Issue:
After upgrading the ER605 to v2.3.0, LAN clients connecting to a server on another LAN subnet no longer show their real source IP. Instead, the server only sees the router’s WAN IP (172.x.x.x) if a port forward is defined.
Steps to Reproduce:
-
Upgrade ER605 v2 from 2.2.6 to 2.3.0.
-
Create two LAN subnets (e.g. 192.168.0.0/24 for clients, 192.168.10.0/24 for servers).
-
Run a simple service like
whoami
on 192.168.10.2 to report client IPs. -
From a LAN client (192.168.0.x), connect to the server by its LAN IP.
-
With no port forward: server shows 192.168.0.x (expected).
-
With port forward defined: server shows 172.x.x.x (WAN IP of ER605).
-
What I Expected:
-
LAN→LAN traffic should be routed directly, with client source IP preserved.
-
Port forwarding should only affect WAN→LAN traffic.
What Actually Happens:
-
LAN→LAN traffic is SNATed to the router’s WAN IP when port forwarding exists.
-
This breaks correct client IP visibility and access control.
Diagram (simplified):
Wi-Fi Client (192.168.0.x) ──> ER605 ──> Server (192.168.10.2)
Reports 192.168.0.x (expected) OR Reports 172.x.x.x (wrong, when port forward exists)
Question:
-
Is this NAT behavior in 2.3.0 intentional?
-
If not, can TP-Link confirm whether this is a bug/regression?
-
Is there a way to prevent NAT from being applied to LAN→LAN traffic?
- Copy Link
- Subscribe
- Bookmark
- Report Inappropriate Content

We have noticed this feedback in another post.
If you experience the same issue as this one:
https://community.tp-link.com/en/business/forum/topic/836128
Please wait for future firmware regarding this if you face the same issue as described.
- Copy Link
- Report Inappropriate Content

Clive_A wrote
GRL wrote
Any chance of a beta for this issue? Im already using the one you supplied for the ER8411 to resolve millions of firewall issues with the NAS at my main site, but i have a similar issue at a remote site as well with a 605v2
I am not seeing a beta for ER605 V2, unfortunately.
If there is one, I will inform you.
Dev compiled one; you can download it here.
- Copy Link
- Report Inappropriate Content

We have noticed this feedback in another post.
If you experience the same issue as this one:
https://community.tp-link.com/en/business/forum/topic/836128
Please wait for future firmware regarding this if you face the same issue as described.
- Copy Link
- Report Inappropriate Content
Maybe I'm missing something, but how is pointing to a beta firmware for a different device a solution?
- Copy Link
- Report Inappropriate Content
- Copy Link
- Report Inappropriate Content
Any chance of a beta for this issue? Im already using the one you supplied for the ER8411 to resolve millions of firewall issues with the NAS at my main site, but i have a similar issue at a remote site as well with a 605v2
- Copy Link
- Report Inappropriate Content
GRL wrote
Any chance of a beta for this issue? Im already using the one you supplied for the ER8411 to resolve millions of firewall issues with the NAS at my main site, but i have a similar issue at a remote site as well with a 605v2
I am not seeing a beta for ER605 V2, unfortunately.
If there is one, I will inform you.
- Copy Link
- Report Inappropriate Content

Clive_A wrote
GRL wrote
Any chance of a beta for this issue? Im already using the one you supplied for the ER8411 to resolve millions of firewall issues with the NAS at my main site, but i have a similar issue at a remote site as well with a 605v2
I am not seeing a beta for ER605 V2, unfortunately.
If there is one, I will inform you.
Dev compiled one; you can download it here.
- Copy Link
- Report Inappropriate Content
- Copy Link
- Report Inappropriate Content
Thank you for the quick fix. I tested it this morning and confirm it resolves the issue on my end.
Now when I connect to my whoami service on VLAN 10 (192.168.10.0/24) from VLAN 1 (192.168.0.0/24), the remote address is correctly reported as a VLAN 1 address.
I discovered this initially because of IP whitelisting rules in my reverse proxy, which is also running in VLAN 10.
I assume this fix will be included in the next stable release?
- Copy Link
- Report Inappropriate Content
SSIDad wrote
Thank you for the quick fix. I tested it this morning and confirm it resolves the issue on my end.
Now when I connect to my whoami service on VLAN 10 (192.168.10.0/24) from VLAN 1 (192.168.0.0/24), the remote address is correctly reported as a VLAN 1 address.
I discovered this initially because of IP whitelisting rules in my reverse proxy, which is also running in VLAN 10.
I assume this fix will be included in the next stable release?
Regarding the development progress and details you mentioned, we, the forum, are currently unable to provide specific information or estimated timelines.
We kindly ask you to be patient and refer to the final firmware release notes for updates on this feature. Thank you for your support and understanding.
- Copy Link
- Report Inappropriate Content
Thank you for this.
I am running into the issue where when I access all of proxy hosts in Nginx Proxy Manager located in VLAN 20 from a client in VLAN 30, it is going to the WAN, meaning it is to the internet instead of just inter-VLAN access.
What I did as a workaround is whenever my public IP changes, I allow it one-by-one for each proxy host, which is so much of a hassle because I have many proxy hosts.
The beta firmware solved my problem. The inter-VLAN access is now working again.
- Copy Link
- Report Inappropriate Content

Information
Helpful: 0
Views: 765
Replies: 10
Voters 0
No one has voted for it yet.