TP-Link wrote

@richpriest 

Thank you very much for the feedback.

It has been noted down and reported to the senior engineers for further consideration;

Temporarily, it is suggested to keep the default DNS server under the DHCP settings, then manually change the DNS server on the guest network devices themselves to use the DNS server on the main network;

Thank you.

 

@TP-Link Hi, thanks for the workaround, but there are several issues I foresee:

 

The devices I segregate with the guest network are my work devices, and so I do not have the access to change the DNS outside of the DHCP suggestions.

 

I'd have to change the DNS on all of the main network devices from 192.168.1.1 (the default/deco) as there is only one DNS server listed in order to provide the control I'm after, as if I assigned both, the deco router would either take precedence or could be used as an alternative on the main network. 

 

I'm also wondering how the devices would have access to the DNS device on the main network as they should be segregated via separate vlans?

Hi, I believe it was a misunderstanding of this quote:

 

"Temporarily, it is suggested to keep the default DNS server under the DHCP settings, then manually change the DNS server on the guest network devices themselves to use the DNS server on the main network;"

 

I understood it to mean that the guest network could still use the DNS server on the main network, rather than the Deco.

 

It's not really a sufficient work-around as it allows devices on the main network to circumvent the DNS setup I have, and defeats the object of my setup. This is why I requested the separate settings. Even if it's a case of allowing the guests to use the Deco, and the main network to use the separate DNS server would be advantageous, although having a separate DHCP range would be good also.

@richpriest I have the exact same setup with the Deco M9+ and encountered the same issue. 

 

As a workaround, and while waiting for an update with DHCP settings for the Guest network, I'm planning to add another instance to serve a different local DNS for the Guest network devices. It would have to be connected via WiFi, since there's no way to wire a port to the guest network, but it should work with slightly more noticeable latency.

 

Anyway, thank you pointing this out, as it's a needed update.

Hi, Glad to know I'm not the only one who noticed. The issue I encountered with adding an instance to the guest network was that the clients are isolated, so even when there is a DNS server on the guest network they can't connect to it. There doesn't seem to be an option to disable isolation between clients which would solve the issue for me.

@richpriest I have also encountered this problem when setting up my PiHole DNS server. Apparently, the server I setup can't be seen by the devices on my guest network due to them belonging to a different VLAN ID. I tried configuring my PiHole server to connect to the guest VLAN but the issue stems from the fact that Guest VLAN can't talk to the Main VLAN.

 

I agree that physically modifying the DNS server details from each guest device is a workaround but that would be a hassle and defeat the purpose of remote administration.

 

So if there's an option to configure the guest VLAN to not use the same DNS server as the main VLAN like what the OP suggested, it would allow a seamless experience for the guest devices to connect to the internet without them actually handing over their device for further configuration.

 

Thanks!

I too am looking for a solution for this problem. If we could configure separate DHCP/DNS settings for the Guest network, this would be solved. I could use the Router, or Cloudflare or Google DNS for the Guest network, and allow my own DNS server to handle all requests on the main network. For now, I am unable to use the guest network for my IoT and friends without having them manually configure a DNS server when they connect.

@TP-Link Hi, 

 

Has there been any feedback from the senior engineers on this issue, please?