The workaround of using a switch in between the Peplink and the Starlink ethernet adapter does not work because:
the whole point of using an ethernet adapter is to disable the Starlink router’s wireless (and thus save on electric power in remote situations).
1.1) once the Starlink router’s wireless is disabled, the Starlink router is no longer a router, but a BRIDGE (it ceases to issue DHCP IP addresses) and a bridge does not work through a switch for Peplink to use it as a wired WAN connection.
This important concept is missed in the workaround and it is quite important.
Bottom line is there are about 11 different Peplink base models (and probably many more sub-models) that are impacted by this hardware issue. The question for Peplink is are they going to MAKE GOOD to their customers by offering a viable workaround (via software/patch) OR a return policy to exchange the impacted device by one that isn’t impacted plus any difference in costs (ie: im willing to pay a bit to get my “bad Peplink device” replaced, that’s not an issue). The issue is whether Peplink is GOING TO DO SOMETHING TO MAKE US WHOLE.
I totally agree on your power point I want this extra switch gone for sure. but I have been using bridge mode with out issue on an unmanaged switch. The switch does not take an IP so the main SL (external) IP is passed through to my wan, it works perfectly fine for me as long as I have the switch in-between. I will accept this as a temporary work around, but agree they should recall/fix at some point.
I was under the impression that the SL router did not automatically change to bridge mode because the Ethernet adapter was plugged in. I had to manually set mine into bridge mode.
my main reason for buying the Ethernet adapter was to plug it into my existing network - so my existing LAN could use it as an additional WAN. None of my routers has wifi as wan - so it was the only option for me to add it to the mix.
do you have other stuff running on the switch between the SL router and the Peplink device? I only have those two devices attached to the switch I am using. I haven’t had any issues with this workaround - mine is a gen 2 router also.
I agree, it is frustrating for something like duplex negotiation to cause such issues in this era of computing, but since this is specific to only StarLink (I haven’t heard of any similar incompatibilities from other brands/makes/models) - it may be StarLink’s fault as well. I guess my point is - why does Peplink have to work with all various manufacturer’s devices, but StarLink is not held to the same standard. It takes two to tango….or something like that.
why other manufacturers don’t have similar issues is beyond me. Perhaps it is because only multi-wan devices would ever be in this situation. Most consumers would be content with the performance of the StarLink router, so it would be rare to find someone using a second router with StarLink without any additional WAN links. I imagine there is always someone doing something for some reason - but, I wouldn’t think it is “the norm” to expect people to run multiple routers at their homes unless they had a legit need (maybe a corporate firewall device must be in front of it to join the work vpn?). Perhaps someone has their LAN setup in a very specific way and they don’t mind a double hop or transparent bridge.
I am a relatively new user of Starlink. I live & work full time from my RV.
I fully understand Jason’s point regarding that none of his existing routers have WiFi as WAN. However, in my case I do (Peplink MAX BR1 PRO LTEA). I also have the Starlink Ethernet adapter. It’s still in it’s unopened box.
Now wanting to drill a big hole in the side or top of my RV, I routed the Starlink cable through a window on the RV and placed the Starlink router about 7’ away from the Peplink device.
Prior to going through the process of installing the Starlink Ethernet adapter, I wanted to see what sort of performance I could attain by connecting the Starlink via WiFi as WAN.
I put both the RV park WiFi & the Starlink WiFi signal as priority 1 & have performed a series of speed tests. I am consistently attaining download speeds around 200 Mbps & upload speeds fluctuating between 10 Mbps & 40 Mbps.
All clients (multiple ROKU’s, a NAS, a printer, a PC, a couple of iPads, & Android phones when in the RV) on my RV LAN connect & function without any difficulty.
At this juncture, I’m just not motivated to mess with the config of the Starlink so I can utilize an Ethernet connection which will run through a switch to connect to the Peplink.
I understand this setup won’t work for all use cases, but it appears to be a viable alternative to the Starlink Ethernet if one has an existing router with WiFi as WAN. Picture of DASHBOARD is attached.
I agree Jason makes sense. It may be starlink’s fault but as of now it does not seem clear who’s fault it is. I also think starling users are in more rural areas so having 2 wan connections and an extra router is not the norm but not uncommon either. I hope one of the two sides works it out, because I dislike wasting power. Luckily I am not mobile/RV users which peplink has a large number of. So in the end I will leave the switch till it can be removed, but overall peplink allows me the best of all worlds. I have 2 WISP connections slow but low latency and SL which is high bandwidth but with a little extra latency. I can section it off in many ways… Could not be happier but still wish it was more perfect…
I have a B20x and Starlink square terminal with the Ethernet adapter in bypass and had no problems with full speed downloads and 1gb hardware network link. Unfortunately this issue is somewhere on the margin and without specific wireline diagnostic equipment it will be hard to tell who isn’t following the spec. Neither starlink or peplink make their own SOC or Ethernet chipsets.
