1 hour ago, Netduma Fraser said:
Yes exactly. That would be a good addition, could be more confusing for users though. I will pass it on to the team, if you've noticed a difference then it is something worth exploring.
Thanks Fraser! I do think it would be a good edition. And I totally understand that it could become confusing for some users. So it would be something that could be more hide per say.. Not easily accessible.. Some thing in the back ground that could be accessed. I get this router is suppose to be very user friendly.. And easy to use for users that are not into anything to techy. But it would help with trouble shooting or just good basic knowledge to eliminate something from the equation when trouble shooting..
My testing has been on going and my results are promising. And it has given very good results for a long period of time now. I do believe im still getting some filtering issues but the main issue with that is because with this type of port triggering one can only trigger one port and not a range of ports in one rule. And the issue about creating another rule is because the inbound range there would be considered over lapping.. So it would be awesome if we could use a range for the triggered ports just like the inbound currently gives us.. This is something other routers do allow. I do feel very confident about my findings thus far. And maybe it would be worth letting the devs know about my issue if you would please..
Another interesting thing I have also stumbled on was the issue causing the Device Manager to get screwed up. Where some devices get stuck in offline and online status.. Im currently now have gone a month without that issue.. Devices are now going offline when they should and coming back online when they should without issue thus far. Still testing this as well but results are very promising..
Zippy.
.png "Port Triggering/UpNp (1)")
