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.
R6300 access control list has an invisible size limit
I have an R6300 router, and I use the access control list feature. We have a lot of devices, and by the time we add family visiting, it adds up even more. For some time now, I've noticed that there seems to be an invisible limit (around 45-48) to the number of entries I can put in the ACL list. I can add more, but they still get access denied, according to the log. I've just updated to what appears to be the newest firmware version (V1.0.2.80_1.0.59), but it doesn't seem to help.
The problem has just become even worse, since I purchased an EX6100 extender, which uses virtual MAC addresses. I don't need to double the size of the ACL (most of our devices work just fine where they are), but I'd like to be able to add at least ten more.
Is this a known bug, or have I missed something? Alternatively, is there a way to allow all traffic from the EX6100 through the R6300 (I can always add an acl in the EX6100)?
Re: R6300 access control list has an invisible size limit
Wouldn't say it's a bug. More like memory management on the router. It's like anything on the router - port foward, address reservation. It all has a maximum space allocation. You hit yours. You could always run your extender in AP mode, that way youwouldn't have to contend with the Virtual MAC Addresses, or turn MAC ACL off, and use a strong wifi passphrase..
Re: R6300 access control list has an invisible size limit
Wouldn't say it's a bug. More like memory management on the router. It's like anything on the router - port foward, address reservation. It all has a maximum space allocation. You hit yours. You could always run your extender in AP mode, that way youwouldn't have to contend with the Virtual MAC Addresses, or turn MAC ACL off, and use a strong wifi passphrase..
Re: R6300 access control list has an invisible size limit
Thanks. I'll try that. It's also occurred to me that I could probably activate the guest devices and throw the occasional users onto them. They don't need to be on my internal network anyway.
You're probably right about the memory allocation, although I would have hoped that I'd get a warning if that happened. Apparently not.
I already have a strong passphrase, but I'd like to keep the ACL if I can. I'm suspicious like that.
