@Clive_A 

No wonder the users in the original ER605 thread were rude to you. Are you an official TP Link employee? If so, it simply shows the sub par quality of the company given the type of replies that you post.

I've been following this local DNS topic for the ER605 since the beggining and I decided to create an account just to point out the freak show this has been. The original post was created 3 years ago with the ER605 in mind. After 3 years of waiting for a feature that any 20$ router ships with from the factory, you post saying that the feature will only be implemented for the newers routers. This shows the utmost disrespect for customers. And I understand that being the face to this charade is not easy, but you had to expect some very dissatisfied customers who would just snap.

Also, your previous response to another user where you say, quote: " IT IS NOT. Geez... ....  If you have a grudge on this request, return or refund. " I mean, is this the official response from a TP-Link community manager? It's laughable at this point.

My advice: You are not qualified to deal with people. Has you also suggested at some point in one of the threads, find a job that suits you.

As for TP-Link, this is just one more topic in a very big list of amateur dealings.

can we please stop flailing around!

All??

I think we all know how stuff like that works today... there are only a number of developers left, same goes for the support-guys.
Everybody is overworked and underpayed and it is no fun maintaining stuff instead of doing all cool new stuff that is still needed in 5 years.
and backlog-management always weighs profit over use...

from a software-perspective and ressource-perspective even on "old" hardware, i am sure making the dhcp-entries available to the dns-cache would be the easiest solution...

long hanging fruit, quick win and we cans till work with an dedicated DNS but still get the current DHCP-entries in there.

@Clive_A is most likely just the man in the middle and no the developer.

i guess we can help by giving him usecases to present to the developers.
 

and i would still appreciate that to be implemented on the ER605 also.

  @Clive_A 

While I admit my own frustration with this topic too more importantly your reply has reminded me of a utmost certain fact: at every user name and post is a real person.    I do sincerely appreciate your posts and help.  
 

Also noted in this day of ultra sanitary over scrubbed non personal manicured replies by garbage by many, I find it refreshing to know there is a real person on the other side of @Clive_A    
 

Please ensure your manager knows many of us see the value in your time spent and help - please ask them to review this post.  

  @Screen1name 

totally agree!!

and i also think the function is essential to get the lineup of TP-Link from "good product" to "perfect fit", so we should not bring too much personal feeling into the backlog ;)

I think you guys are missing the point.

Clive_A I know you are just doing your job but you must understand that everyone that comments on these types of posts is a customer. And a customer will always demand the best value for his/her money. About this specific topic of the DNS server, you must understand that this is considered a basic feature. To have a router that doesn't resolve hostnames is like a car that has no interior lights for example. Sure, it still runs fine and takes you from A to B, but would it make sense that you had no interior lightning?

Anyway, the main point is that, at some point during the 3 years that passed since the ER605 post was created, the feature was tagged as accepted and that it would be implemented. There was an expectation that this basic feature would be implemented. After that, you guys came back on your word and said that it won't be anymore, only for newer routers. So, if you want the feature, you need to pay for a more expensive product and throw yours in the trash. Can't you see how bad this is? If I have to explain this basic stuff it means you don't know anything about customer relationships. It's as simple as that.

For my clients, they don't care if they have to spend 70$ or 300$ or 1000$ on a router. I had to implement work arounds to resolve hostnames that can be removed once you release this feature for the targeted routers. But this is not always the case. Some clients bought ER605 because it's more than enough for their needs and they'll be missing a critical feature. 

No one is looking for apologies (at least I'm certainly not). I just think that the backlash is more than warranted and you should not be surprised by it.