port forwarding doesnt work with PR60X router and M4300-48X switch

Dear op3c ... being much to long around consumer and many small business market much to long: How does the PR60X properly handle the wonderful port 80/TCP port-forwarding example from the RT*M (!!!) without being intercepted by some other smart-a-**** ideas often shamelessly specified by carless product managers? 

Needless to say, on a small business class multi WAN NAT router, which should cover virtually any use case, say to operate a https server NAT port forwarded on the industry standard port 443/TCP, or drawing the design a little bit ahead to the VPN implementations covering SSL-VPN -also- using 443/TCP, or for the sake of it the convenient OpenVPN using 1193/UDP without interfering with whatever valid services your customers intend to operate on a NATed port-forwarded say a WireGuard service on port 51820/UDP - without making it impossible to operate such a service on the very same security appliance, similar limitations on IPsec ... this is what a PR60X should be (or become mid term). Isn't all this on the Netgear shareholders plans?

Or can we talk about the complete lack of a proper NAT implementation beyond of the consumer class IPv4 NAT forwarding Netgear does continue to push as the one and only solution on what is supposed to be a fully fledged dual-WAN-router?

Or can we discuss about the (non-existing!) object oriented firewall design? Netgear is decades behind the competition which does have these features in the 4th or 5th iteration already. 

Back to specifications, back to in-depth beta testing with this half-baked, unfinished "product" please. Netgear is still stuck in the late 1990ties!

Netgear is one or two decades behind the competition, many years to late.