murphy wrote:When you put a Telo behind your router don't use the Home port at all and you won't have any double NAT problems.
That's true, but in vain I search for anything in it that has the remotest relation to the thread.
Right now, the Telo acts like a one-output router with a two-port switch attached to it. The WAN input of this internal router is the Telo's "internet" port; the Telo's internal switch has its two ports connected to the Telo's "home" port and to the Telo's internal Ethernet client. Thus you can't move a packet between Telo's "home" and "internet" ports without going through the accursed crippleware router built into the Telo.
Thunderbird's suggestion is that the Telo be configurable as a three-port switch with no internal router at all. In this configuration the internal three-port switch would have one of its ports permanently connected to Telo's internal Ethernet client, and the other two ports connected to Telo's "internet" and "home" ports, which would then become interchangeable. This would make it possible to remove Telo's internal router from one's network completely, at the cost of requiring an external router between Telo and the modem. Many people already operate their routers that way, and in my opinion everyone ought to, if there are routers in their networks. It would not only eliminate Telo's accursed router, but also avoid the effective loss of an available switch port.
To me this seems a most intelligent and creative idea, one to be welcomed, seized upon, and placed into physical realization with all deliberate speed if Telo's present hardware can handle it. If Telo's present hardware can't
handle it, surely it would be a perfectly trivial hardware change for some future version of Ooma.