Yeah I'm just going to keep experimenting with it for the educational value, but I'm going to have to buy something else for my daily driver AP.
I previously tried an Asus BE92U which does have a 10GbE port, but with that one the problem is no VLAN support. (And it's Broadcom so it's unlikely to ever get mainline OpenWRT, but I could live without that if necessary)
Back to the product design of the Flint 3: what's the point of having a AP that can do 9.3Gb/s (in MLO mode) if it can only uplink to the rest of the LAN at 2.5Gb/s?
I just don't know. These SOHO devices are primarily for WAN access + some spices for addnl flavoring. That's it. The SDK trash resulting in stale kernels & outdated releases normally cripples the capabilities more than the switch.
You could always get a something like NUC & drop OWRT x86_64 on it if you don't mind the power draw. Check this out:
Yes, it's false. There is no lan port aggregation. I'm very upset about it as that was a main purchase reason, and when I emailed them about it they offered me a $10 refund for their mistake. They just don't seem to understand just how big of a deal it is that one of it's most important advertised features is a lie. They did a bait and switch.
I don't know if I'd go that far. Read enough of their changelogs & you'll start noticing they use non-standard terminology that doesn't match generally accepted standards like 'VPN composite policies' instead of 'policy based routing.' English isn't exactly their native tounge, if you know what I'm saying, & their marketing leaves much to be desired (as stated).
You could always get a something like NUC & drop OWRT x86_64 on it if you don't mind the power draw. Check this out:
Yeah, my current router is a HP SFF running OpnSense, I was considering downsizing to a SOHO router whilst upgrading to WiFi 7, hence the Flint 3.
They did a bait and switch.
I wouldn't go so far as to say it was intentional. By that I mean the feature doesn't seem to be completely unsupportable, it's just not implemented in the current software version.
I've experimented with this a bit, and it seems that the Qualcomm SoC and the Realtek switch chip both support aggregation, it's just that the QSDK drivers get in the way by trying to hardware offload the LAG group even though the links being aggregated aren't on the Qualcomm ports.
I think a more modern kernel with DSA would allow it to work, or at least get it to a state where you could bodge it with port-based VLANs.
Read enough of their changelogs & you'll start noticing they use non-standard terminology
I agree, there is clearly a lot of machine translation and Chinglish going on. I don't fault anyone for that, since their English is far better than my Cantonese, but it does present a barrier to technical communication that can make its way into misleading marketing claims, as we've seen here.
Here in Europe, I would have the legal right to return the device to the retailer within three months for being "not fit for purpose" and "not as described", but since mine was a secondhand eBay purchase from a private seller my only options are to keep it or resell it.
You could always 'donate' it to the OWRT devs. I've heard/read they always appreciate hardware as it helps them test against. I don't recall where I came across that; apologies.
