> It does not function as layer 3 forwarder (aka router), only as host, and that host function is theoretically optional. Set aside the theory and look at how

> It does not function as layer 3 forwarder (aka router), only as host, and that host function is theoretically optional. Set aside the theory and look at how any of the real devices are implemented. These devices are all running Linux, and that Linux OS is managing a minimum of two separate NICs with the full software networking stack. They incorporate all of the software complexity of a full-blown router, and none of the simplicity and security/privacy advantages of an unmanaged Ethernet switch which is a purely L2 device. There's no separation of control plane and data plane; no hardware-accelerated forwarding between Ethernet and WiFi to allow packets to skip a trip through the CPU cores. In fact, it is often the case that the only meaningful difference between a consumer WiFi router and a WiFi extender is that the latter omits the Ethernet switch chip and consequently only has one or two Ethernet ports rather than 5+ ports. Presuming that a WiFi extender is less likely to be nefarious than a WiFi router by analogy to a layer 2 unmanaged Ethernet switch (with at most kilobytes of RAM and likely only an 8-bit or 16-bit microcontroller for a processor core) is entirely wrong.