This topic has been marked solved and closed to new posts due to inactivity. We hope you'll join the conversation by posting to an open topic or starting a new one.
So I suspect I know the answer looking at the UI and this forum but is there an option, or is one planned, to allow this expensive router to actually route rather than doing NAT?
Going to leave this to die now. In the interim I'm going to raise a complaint with the UK's Advertising Standards Authority alongside some other local bodies - Netgear are selling a router that doesn't actually route to and from the Internet, it's a NAT gateway. They are not the same thing.
Tried writing to a couple of senior people at Netgear and was greeted with total ignorance. No mail from them, unsurprising, or from a representative in some kind of escalation point.
Netgear wireless NAT gateways seem to point to that however good the hardware is poorly written and specified firmware will always bring it down.
The X10 is going to follow the Linksys EA9500 that was returned previously. That may have been faulty but at least it was a router that could, ya know, route between LAN and WAN.
Wonder which laughing, joking numb-nuts thought it'd be funny not to bother with routing across the WAN-LAN dataplane but to put a RIP daemon in the software, presumably for those really complicated home networks that need dynamic routing on the LAN but are fine with mandatory NAT between LAN and WAN.
I want to use the router both to segment my home network, I want the wireless clients on a different subnet from the cabled ones, and to allow me to provide guest WiFi networks that can't reach my own devices. I have a wired router that handles any NAT I may want to implement.
AP mode means all guest clients have full access to the LAN - this is not desirable.
Using the device in router mode means double NAT - this is not desirable.
Bridge mode won't work - however that this is here shows that a non-NAT router mode is doable.
It's almost certainly a Linux box with some packet acceleration hardware, that's perfectly capable of routing LAN to WAN going by the bridge mode, and some wireless cards. It's a conscious choice by Netgear not to support an actual routed mode and insist on NAT - this is neither necessary or desirable.
This thing supports RIP however it then renders it largely useless - every packet going out on the WAN will have a source IP address of the router's WAN interface due to NAT so there's nothing to route to on that side.
This is a $400 router and Netgear don't seem interested in it. They have not produced a USB 802.11ad adapter despite reference designs being available, this would be a great way to support this device, and they have this asinine feature in the firmware where they insist on NAT.
What I want to accomplish is owning a router that routes, rather than a NAT gateway.
I want to use the router both to segment my home network, I want the wireless clients on a different subnet from the cabled ones, and to allow me to provide guest WiFi networks that can't reach my own devices. I have a wired router that handles any NAT I may want to implement.
AP mode means all guest clients have full access to the LAN - this is not desirable.
Using the device in router mode means double NAT - this is not desirable.
Bridge mode won't work - however that this is here shows that a non-NAT router mode is doable.
It's almost certainly a Linux box with some packet acceleration hardware, that's perfectly capable of routing LAN to WAN going by the bridge mode, and some wireless cards. It's a conscious choice by Netgear not to support an actual routed mode and insist on NAT - this is neither necessary or desirable.
This thing supports RIP however it then renders it largely useless - every packet going out on the WAN will have a source IP address of the router's WAN interface due to NAT so there's nothing to route to on that side.
This is a $400 router and Netgear don't seem interested in it. They have not produced a USB 802.11ad adapter despite reference designs being available, this would be a great way to support this device, and they have this asinine feature in the firmware where they insist on NAT.
What I want to accomplish is owning a router that routes, rather than a NAT gateway.
The is still large home which tries to be the next of many until they refine so it pulls parts of past with the future and as far the ad standard goes it is too early see ad based usb wifi adaptors on every corner, it was the way then a and b strandard give too the g strandard and the same for the n standard even the ac followed this path.
Thank you, but no-one put a gun to Netgear's head and demanded they produce an 802.11ad router. Given they have it's perfectly reasonable to expect them to produce a client device, especially given they have reference designs to work on.
I don't expect to see 802.11ad USB adapters on every corner. I do expect them to at least be available from manufactures that have seen fit to include 802.11ad modules in their access points / routers.
As far as the rest of your post goes, and to be honest the section I've already responded to, it seems to be platitudes, which I'm not in any way interested in. I can certainly let the lack of a USB 802.11ad adapter go, the asinine decisions regarding NAT I cannot.
What I want to hear is that Netgear are producing a firmware that offers the option to disable NAT, not excuses why this is unreasonable - it isn't on any level. While the firmware is a step up from Linksys' Tomy My First Network GUI the ommission of a non-NAT mode is, as I've said numerous times, asinine. That is the best word as it fits so well.
The router offers various low-level configuration options for wireless. It has an SFP+ port. It includes LACP and static LAG. It includes a RIP daemon. Expecting it to actually have an option to route rather than being forced to use it as a NAT gateway is not unreasonable.
To add to the joy the support site doesn't work with Chrome. Hitting to submit a ticket it's never submitted, I just go back to where I was before, with the forms populated. No matter, it's not like it's the most used browser in the world with a majority of the market or anything.
EDIT: My bad. It won't let me submit a case with MS Edge either.
Going to leave this to die now. In the interim I'm going to raise a complaint with the UK's Advertising Standards Authority alongside some other local bodies - Netgear are selling a router that doesn't actually route to and from the Internet, it's a NAT gateway. They are not the same thing.
Tried writing to a couple of senior people at Netgear and was greeted with total ignorance. No mail from them, unsurprising, or from a representative in some kind of escalation point.
Netgear wireless NAT gateways seem to point to that however good the hardware is poorly written and specified firmware will always bring it down.
The X10 is going to follow the Linksys EA9500 that was returned previously. That may have been faulty but at least it was a router that could, ya know, route between LAN and WAN.
Wonder which laughing, joking numb-nuts thought it'd be funny not to bother with routing across the WAN-LAN dataplane but to put a RIP daemon in the software, presumably for those really complicated home networks that need dynamic routing on the LAN but are fine with mandatory NAT between LAN and WAN.
