RV345 routing, why does cisco do nothing?

[ferdinando.alde]

I wonder if Cisco exists for small routers or is interested only in the assistance of big ones.

They have in production a router that does not work and it seems that those who bought it are abandoned with an unusable "piece of iron". Which, however, was paid based on the specifics of operation.
Seen from the customer's side, it looks like a scam. Truly incredible.

The flaw is the lack of return from static routes ... it does not seem to me a marginal problem, but a real firmware defect.

And no solution news can be read.
What should I do? Change producer hoping for greater seriousness?
And throw away the RV345P ......

[paul driver]

Hello

So to summarize - You say the router is the switch and its also is ruining as a gateway, which contradicts the topology you supplied and the information being provided, as in the topology we see the router/host/server all connected to a physical switch

Also presently you point your pc ( which is a host) D/G towards the 345 router which is also a running as a(host/gateway) but has a static route to the NUC remote subnet and connectivity fails

The unresponsive port (5000-5001) belongs to a Sinology NAS and with the
RV325 it works.
If, on the other hand, I use an RDP port (3389) for an application that
resides on the NUC (Remote Desktop) it works great as there is no transfer
via the LAN

So if you bypass the 345 and point the pc directly to the NUC which is performing some routing you establish full connectivity to the above?.

---

ferdinando.alde wrote:
The static parts of the network are correct, otherwise the RV325 would not
work either

---

Well that's not entirely true  - My understanding is a router running as a gateway isn't a router its a host, in-fact it doesn't even get passed Layer 2, its isn't intelligent to make forwarding decisions even though i guest it allows static routing etc, it can however be pointed to a "gateway or router" for a more intelligent next hop reachability.

And given the fact that Georg has stated the difference between the working modals and the 345 is that the 345 utilizes two modes ( gateway bridge/router) so with all the testing you have done have you tried the 345 as a router if it does indeed support that mode?

res
Paul

[ferdinando.alde]

Paul, I'm sure that you are right ... but can you tell to me how can I
select the working mode (gateway/router) of RV345?

Nando

[Georg Pauwen]

Nando,

the RV345 does not have those two modes, it is simply a router (similar to the Gateway Mode on the RV325).

I am not sure if you have already given that information, but on the RV325 and the RV345, what interfaces do the static routes have as their next hop/outgoing ?

[michael.pammer]

As it Looks like I have a year later after you also a Problem with static routes… sure newer Firmware...

Wondering if one could find a solution?

Kind regards,

Michael

[hamamuram]

Hi,

if I understand the problem correctly I observe the same problem.

1. There is an openvpn client in a separate network and VLAN
2. The static routes on the RV345 point to different networks via the openvpn client.
3. The RV345 regularly forgets about the static routes.
4. The routes are still listed under Routing->Static routes.
5. Static routes disappear under Status and Statistics->Static routes

I have the feeling that the 1.0.03.24 version of the firmware has this problem less often (no hard evidence)/

I agree that this is completely annoying problem and renders the router at least as unreliable. I had a DrayTek before and perhaps I will go back to them.

Cheers,