Le ecureuil

Without opkg - no.

The work is in progress, but without explicit deadline.

Do you have your extender acquired in the MWS or did you configured it manually?

So the real feature request sounds as "don't lease the IP address to the host with the installed local-administrated bit in address". Sounds interesting, will reconsider this.

I've got the point, thanks. Implementing some sort of a garbage collection would be nice.

MAC addresses ranges are allocated just per-vendor and rather randomly. To be honest, I don't understand where one can use ranges. Do you want to block all Realtek devices, but to allow all Intel ones? Sounds strange.

1. Do you really use profits of the autoregistration in this case? Maybe it's enough just to turn it off? 2. This request can be considered in the future, thanks.

We are keeping track of this, and in case of obsoletion we will do something, of course. But now it's not strictly required.

Ok, thanks for the information, will try to investigate.

Please contact with the official support: it solves similar problems.

Could you please tell us what features of the fourth version do you need? We don't upgrade because transmission 4.0 uses C++ inplace of C, and consumes significantly more CPU, RAM and flash storage.

In general it doesn't matter, RMM uses other subsystem and doesn't rely on any HTTPS port.

With which client do you observe this error? Built-in Windows Explorer?

It's so-called CORS-preflight request, and is already fixed in version 4.3.

> components list draft > components commit This bunch of commands does exactly the same that you described.