Hi guys,

I've been trawling the documentation (admin guide, knowledge base at http://sbkb.cisco.com and forum posts) trying to figure out whether the RV320 would meet my requirements.  I selected this model because it seems sufficiently powerful, and it is not a wireless model.  Wireless access is absolutely redundant as I have APs to provide this functionality.

The router would need to perform the following 3 functions:

1. Provide secure (firewalled) Internet access to a variety of clients using only WAN1; those clients should also be able to talk to each other --> This should not be a problem, any router can do this, but I'm not convinced I can prevent the clients from using WAN2.  I would need to use the Load Balance mode, because I need Protocol Binding (see point 3).  Can it be done?
2. Provide secure (firewalled) Internet access to "guest" clients using only WAN1; those clients should not be able to access anything besides the Internet - so no access to other network devices/clients.  They would use an AP to connect. I can have those clients on a separate VLAN starting on the AP, but I've not found a way (in documentation) to define a "guest" Internet access (preventing internal access) or to link it to a VLAN.  Can it be done?  Would I need to use separate ports on the router and assign different VLANs, or can I use a single port with multiple tagged VLANs (one for the regular clients and one for the guests)?  My network consists of managed switches only (SG300 series) so VLANs can be propagated.  I would prefer to use a single cable from my main switch to the router.
3. Segregate protocol-specific traffic from a single client to use only WAN2 --> This should be possible using the "protocol binding" functionality - correct?  I would also like to be able to place this client in a separate VLAN or subnet, and have all Internet traffic from this VLAN or subnet be carried only on WAN2.  Can it be done?

Thanks for any feedback!

Please feel free to propose a different product within roughly the same price range - I would prefer a non-wireless product.

Best regards,

Chris

Note to Cisco: DynDNS is no longer free.  It would be good if more dynamic DNS options were present, as is the case in DD-WRT (you can even use a URL), allowing for free solutions.  This feature is extremely limited in its present form.