I am not sure why they changed the VLAN configuration page, or if anyone else cares. But I would like to request that it is either changed back, or the ability to decide which vlans use which ports is added, rather than the current tagged, and untagged options. I also think any wireless vlans should be seperate as they were in the older firmwares.
Having spoken to support the changes were implemented to make it easier to configure. Personally it hasn't made things easier for me.
Old Configuration Pages:
New Configuration Pages:
Cheapers Cisco routers have these options (except they only allow 4 vlans) as do many other makes such as draytek.
I bought this router because it was intuative and simple to use and allowed me to specify which vlans used which ports, now that this feature has gone it's caused me all sorts of issues. Maybe I am alone on this one, but it seems like a step backwards to me. It just isn't as configurable.
Would anyone else like to see the old vlan config pages back?
Is this possible?
How does one go about officially putting in a feature request?
You are right - users should be able to specify which VLANs use which ports.
With the current VLAN membership table (you've attached), there should be an additional drop-down option telling RV220W that a given port is not part of a given VLAN.
In short, the issue will be corrected in the next firmware release.
I do hope this is sorted in the next release as you have indicated tekliu.
Any ideas as to when a new release will be issued, hasn't been out all that long.
You could contact the support center to see if you can have access to firmware 184.108.40.206 (beta), which supports inter-VLAN access rules.
Inter-vlan access rules? Unless my interpretation is a little off, I can't see how that would address the issue of being able to specify which vlans use which port.
Appolgies if I have misunderstood.
Thanks for replying though tekliu.
If you don't mind, can you tell us if inter-VLAN ACL functionality is being added to any other SMB routers... most especially the SA500 series routers?
No, I decided not to use the beta of 220.127.116.11 as my router is used on a live business system and I didn't want to risk using a beta. I will wait for the offical release candidate. Unless anyone cares to commment on not having any major issues.
I agree if you're not having any major issues and it's just about a new feature then i wouldn't put a beta release on my router as well.