before i had a problem with access to 192.168.85.1(for time update over ntp), but now it does not exist. solved through a static route 192.168.85.1/255.255.255.255 over 192.168.85.2(yes, it is ip address of lan interface c1200)

Good work, pal

Dear BABUT, as far as I know, C1200 do not need to set up static IP when acting as an access point. May I know do you set your up your C1200 as an access point? 1. For the fig 1. , sorry to tell you that C1200 does not design in this way. 2. I have tested the ping result when the C1200 work as a router(dynamic IP), and can successfully ping tp-link.com. You may try to ping other website since there may be some unstable on the network.

you just dont understand. your routers can not operate in bridge mode between wifi and wan ifaces. not because they cant, but because you dont give. so we cant use wan iface, but can use lan instead. you think that for a home users only needs to route iphone in internet? no dude, the world is more complicated. so i use as router d2500cc with openbsd, and your routers(this is not the first) as AP(because wifi support in openbsd too bad). you could make a good routers(now you're doing a good price), for this, as a first step, need to throw out your fascist gui and give to users the freedom of actions. but this is not in chinese culture, yep? ;)static routes is only a consequence of

I tried doing the same over the weekend. In short, it doesn't work, and a possible workaround is cumbersome at best.

Longer version: TP-Link provide no option for routers to run in AP-only mode, with NAT disabled, and its default gateway set to something on the LAN. This wouldn't be a big deal if their APs were affordable, but here an Archer C58 is €39 while an AP300 is €55 while offering less functionality (only one switchport instead of four).

You can partially work around the situation by adding tons of static routes, similar to what's described in the previously linked KB article. Sadly the web UI places several nonsensical restrictions on the static routes you can add. For example, it refuses to allow you to set a default route. The normal workaround is to add two routes, one for 0.0.0.0/128.0.0.0 and 128.0.0.0/128.0.0.0 (or 128.0.0.0/192.0.0.0 and 192.0.0.0/224.0.0.0 to avoid routing multicast space), but the router refuses the first one because 0.0.0.0 is considered invalid, and the second route overlaps with 192.168.x.y where probably its LAN management interface is numbered in.

In order to do the static route trick you'll have to add routes (in CIDR notation) for these prefixes: 1/8, 2/7, 4/6, 8/5, 16/4, 32/3, 64/3, 96/3, 128/3, 160/3, 192.0/9, 192.128.0/11, 192.160/13, 192.169/16, 192.170/15, 192.172/14, 192.176/12, 192.192/10, 193/8, 194/7, 196/6, 200/5, 208/4. At several mouse clicks each.

And then the router may still refuse to set the time automatically or check for firmware updates because its WAN interface is technically still down, even though it'll have full IP reachability!

I hope this helps.


Ideally TP-Link add an 'AP-Only / WAN port disabled or added to bridge' setting, possibly getting its local IP address via DHCP, next to the usual Dynamic IP/Static IP/PPPoE/L2TP/PPTP settings for WAN.

Published Date: 2018-01-12	Language: Multi-language	File Size: 14.83 MB
[TABLE] [TR]	Modifications and Bug Fixes: 2. Add AP mode for this device.

[/TR]
[/TABLE]

good job! but what about hardware v.1? we are tp-link's beta-testers and we deserve the update in the first place. otherwise we will go to other brands

BABUT wrote

Published Date: 2018-01-12	Language: Multi-language	File Size: 14.83 MB
[TABLE] [TR]	Modifications and Bug Fixes: 2. Add AP mode for this device.

[/TR]
[/TABLE]


good job! but what about hardware v.1? we are tp-link's beta-testers and we deserve the update in the first place. otherwise we will go to other brands

New "AP Mode" don't permit use DHCP Address Reservation. Why?

puche wrote

New "AP Mode" don't permit use DHCP Address Reservation. Why?

AP mode and DHCP server are mutually exclusive by design. Either your device runs as router and hands out DHCP addresses, or it runs as access point and functions as bridge only.

BABUT wrote

but what about hardware v.1? we are tp-link's beta-testers and we deserve the update in the first place. otherwise we will go to other brands

Maybe if TP-Link had fewer different but incredibly similar hardware products, both in features and in pricing, they could focus more on software quality and support, increasing value.

Take, for example, the C58 and C59. Very close together in price (€1 difference right now, it was €5 a year ago), very close together in functionality (the C59 has a USB port that the C58 lacks). Why go through all the hassle of stocking different inventories and maintaining different software branches when you can have one model? Like, who cares about €1 price difference when the next steps up in quality (AC1750, AC2300 instead of AC1350) cost €75 or €150? The consumer would save time not having to research little details like this too.

And maybe then we'd be able to get some CRACK mitigation security software updates for these...

Fanless wrote

AP mode and DHCP server are mutually exclusive by design. Either your device runs as router and hands out DHCP addresses, or it runs as access point and functions as bridge only.

AP Mode an DHCP Server are not mutually exclusive.

Router Mode permits DHCP Server and DHCP Address Reservation
AP Mode only permits DHCP Server, no address Reservation.
Has no sense.