[HN Gopher] WRT54G History: The Router That Accidentally Went Op... ___________________________________________________________________ WRT54G History: The Router That Accidentally Went Open Source Author : uptown Score : 454 points Date : 2021-01-13 14:35 UTC (8 hours ago) (HTM) web link (tedium.co) (TXT) w3m dump (tedium.co) | birdman3131 wrote: | One thing this article completely misses is the reliability of | the WRT54G. It may be old but I have never picked up a used one | that did not just work reliably. Never heard of anybody I know | having one die. | | Contrast that to the newer square black pancake linksys routers | and after about a year or so they seem to develop hardware issues | and even a reset won't fix them. (Always assumed the chips needed | heatsinks and were slowly cooking themselves) | Bluecobra wrote: | I remember lots of people reporting failures around the time | when bad capacitors flooded the market and lots of consumer | devices were affected. My WRT54G is a later model (v4.0?) that | seemed to be unaffected by this issue. | | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacitor_plague | znpy wrote: | Just bought a WRT3200ACM about a month ago to replace the isp- | provided router... Slapped OpenWRT on it and... It's a dream. | stagger87 wrote: | As someone with a WRT3200ACM, what's the advantage of OpenWRT | over the preinstalled FW? (honest question) A quick search | indicated better security (which I don't know how to assess), | and I was wondering if there was any functional/feature | advantages you have seen. | bitxbitxbitcoin wrote: | I just bought 8 WRT54Gs and GSs to set up some Broadband Hamnet | nodes for a mesh net. | [deleted] | cowmix wrote: | This route + Tomato firmware.. amazing! | wnevets wrote: | Tomato was ahead of its time when it came to router ui | DanTheManPR wrote: | Tomato is such a slick piece of software, combined with one of | the most practical pieces of consumer electronics I've ever | owned. Only reason I stopped using it was because of eventual | advances in networking tech. My old WRT54G with Tomato got | donated to my friend's game store, and still serves to this day | as the public wifi access point there. | smiley1437 wrote: | Tomato is\was amazing, like you I've moved on | | However I've never found a cheap router that has Real-time, | PER-IP network utilization graphs that you can just click on | like in Tomato (I don't want to send netflows to another | machine for analysis, I just want to see it right on the | router's web interface) | | If anyone has a suggestion I'm all ears | WaitWaitWha wrote: | Reading this article makes me realize how old I am. I pretend, | but then when "historical" write-ups are presented, and I blurt | out "wait, that was just yesteryear...", I instantly realize, I | am ancient in technology terms. | throwaway1999x wrote: | So, I worked for Broadcom for some years after this went down. | This post is purely descriptive to give people some insight into | the history from inside the company; I'm not commenting on who | should have done what (although I was not directly involved, so | if someone who was comments, take their word over mine). | | Broadcom made an error of judgement here, but this incident | fostered a deep distrust of open source, at senior levels, that | persisted for more than a decade after; perhaps to this day. | | Firstly at this point Cisco was, at the time, Broadcom's largest | customer by a large margin. This caused huge tension in that | relationship that was totally unforseen, and was very painful for | a while. | | Secondly, a at a certain point it dawned on Cisco and Broadcom | that the GPL lawsuit was not like a normal business dispute , | because businessmen after a certain point will settle for money | even if they didn't get everything they want. Sure a few people | will keep going to the detriment of their own business, but most | aim to make profit, not expound a principle. Many companies in | the position of the FSF would have settled for a cut of the | revenue. But the FSF wanted the source code released, and they | were prepared to kill the business to get it. So Cisco and | Broadcom had to concede. The source code was released, and | OpenWRT was born. | | The fallout, though was that subsequently Broadcom router ICs | were designed with hardware accelerators which were separate from | the main CPU. They were driven by separate CPUs on the same SoC | that did not run linux and whose drivers could not be demanded | under the GPL. none of the open source firmwares can run these | devices efficiently unless someone spends weeks reverse | engineering them. | d1zzy wrote: | I'm not sure about the last point. I would think hardware | dedicated accelerators were done because it was the cheapest | way to achieve that performance not because it allowed to | somehow bypass GPL. However, choosing to not run Linux but some | proprietary OS could most certainly have something to do with | that. | | At the end of the day, was it a good thing? I would say it was. | It opened many generations of home router hardware to being | modded/replaced with user controlled software. It even created | a market of its own where certain consumer router hardware is | advertised as being designed to run custom/third-party software | and where vendors themselves ship with some heavily modified | software and release the sources for it from day 1 (which are | the only wifi routers I shop for these days). | ktpsns wrote: | If there was a WRT54G version with Gigabit ethernet, it would be | my daily driver today. Having a 100mbit/sec switch is the only | reason why my WRT54G is sitting in the shelve without any work. I | only use it for tinkering one day or the other. | ct0 wrote: | https://www.asuswrt-merlin.net/features | selectodude wrote: | WRT3200ACM is the modern incarnation. | [deleted] | sam_lowry_ wrote: | At 5 times the price. | sonotmyname wrote: | They're $249 almost everywhere, and the WRT54G was $199. | Taking inflation into account, the 3200 is likely cheaper | than the 54g was... | masklinn wrote: | According to the CPI's Inflation Calculator, $200 in | December 2002 (release of the 54G) was $287.98 as of | December 2020. | | So yeah. | | Even at MSRP (280), the 3200 is cheaper than the 54G was | at release. | Macha wrote: | https://www.linksys.com/us/p/P-WRT3200ACM/ | | I had to look because I was wondering "Do they really | charge $1000 for a consumer router + AP?" The answer is no. | | $250 vs the $200 of the WRT54G in its heyday doesn't seem | so bad for 15 years of inflation | tandr wrote: | I don't remember ever seeing WRT54G above $80, and I | bought both of mine for $69 and $59 I think. What time | period are referring to ? | guenthert wrote: | The WRT54GL was $50 when I picked it up new many, many | years ago. | | EDIT: apparently it dropped in price considerably in the | first few years. | joshstrange wrote: | Can confirm this router can handle gigabit ISP speeds, I | upgraded to this specifically because my previous router | (also flashed with OpenWRT) couldn't get my full speeds I was | paying for. | | Here it is on Amazon: | https://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/B01JOXW3YE/ | bentcorner wrote: | You can install openwrt on x86. Grab an old desktop PC (or | laptop) and if it has built in GigE it might be enough, | depending on the processor. Worst case buy an Intel NIC and | you're off. | | Alternately get an Edgerouter X and install openwrt on that. | shimonabi wrote: | I used a WRT54G v2.2 for more than 10 years. | | A few years ago I wanted to setup a repeater with it, but it was | not powerful enough to handle AES in repeater mode, if I remember | correctly. | Triv888 wrote: | The other day, I accidentally robbed a bank... | renewiltord wrote: | Interesting concept to outsource software development to OSS | developers and stick to hardware development. Wonder why Cisco | didn't take that angle with WRT54GL derivatives. I had one and it | was quite nice. | | Only thing I can think of is that the hardware was plenty capable | but the software is where feature differentiation is and they | didn't want to end up being commoditized. | | It appears that approach has been successful. | technofiend wrote: | I see Mikrotik does have an open source repo on Github, but it's | not clear if you could really build a working OS from it. | | That's another platform I'd love to see go open source with as | required binary blobs for the network bits. In particular to see | how updating their kernel to something recent benefits | performance; their patches are for kernel 3.3.x. | whalesalad wrote: | I remember feeling like such an edgy, cool and counter-culture | youth during this period that I did everything in my power to | avoid using this piece of hardware just because it was so | popular. Joke was totally on me - everything else in the space at | the time was mostly crap. I finally caved in and ultimately owned | quite a few of them. Really rock-solid pieces of gear! | napkin wrote: | I was _just_ thinking about the importance of the WRT54G in the | last days while selecting a new wireless access point. I ordered | an Ubiquiti UAC-AP-LITE, based on the price and clean hardware | design. I was torn on firmware- Unifi, or flash OpenWRT? The day | my package arrives the news of the Ubiquiti breach emerges. | OpenWRT it is! Some things never change. | | A lot of what I learned about networking I owe to the | coolness/fun factor of installing OpenWRT on WRT54G units when I | was a teenager. | pabs3 wrote: | I wonder what class of device will accidentally go open source | next. I think I vote robot vacuums. | hattar wrote: | I don't know that it's accidental. iRobot really promotes | hacking their devices even going to the extent of making non- | vacuum devices similar to their base units that are designed to | be modded. https://store.irobot.com/default/create- | programmable-program... | gorgoiler wrote: | It's right up there with the NSLU2 in terms of delightfully | accidental Linux platforms. | sunnytimes wrote: | i loved my WRT in the beginning for XLink Kai .. after that when | i got a new router i used the WRT as a range extender which was | nice until the wifi basically died .. loved tomato.. i think i | still have one .. | dgrabla wrote: | I cannot believe nobody has said "I'm still using them" yet. I | have two of them still happily moving packets the same they did | back in mid 2000. | the8472 wrote: | Network speeds got faster and the software stack became more | CPU-hungry (e.g. running CAKE), which means old hardware can't | keep up with many use-cases. | jabl wrote: | I donated mine to my father. He still uses it for his somewhat | basic wifi needs (he has wired ethernet for his "real" desktop | computer). | hyperman1 wrote: | Seconded. I actually used it a few months ago to stage 20 old | laptops for covid induced homescooling. The 10 laptops staging | before that managed to cook my more modern router, and I had | promised to deliver the next day. The WRT didn't budge and was | actually speedy enough. | greenshackle2 wrote: | I donated two of them to my parents who used them until one | died a few months ago. They live in the boonies so, they only | get 10mbps internet but wanted good coverage for a decently | sized house + garage, so I set one up as repeater. | | But I wouldn't use it myself anymore, unlike my parents I don't | have mid 2000's internet speeds, and I stream games, movies and | take backups over wifi. | nicolas_t wrote: | What's a reliable company for multi-AP setups that also respect | my privacy? Ubiquity had that whole phone home scandal.. Eero I'm | not sure yet. | | I have pfSense for the routing but now just need access points. | So far I've been using an old Asus ac86u on Merlin as an AP but | the reception is not great in other rooms due to the fact that | walls in my apartment are concrete with rebar. | LeoPanthera wrote: | I use a pfSense+UniFi combo. I know about the scandal, but they | added an option for the user to control it and as far as I | know, they haven't done anything questionable since - software | quality aside. | | (Actually I know the internet loves to bitch about Ubiquiti but | my experience has been just fine. Maybe it's because I don't | have a Unifi router.) | nicolas_t wrote: | Yeah, it might be an overreaction but the fact they did that | does show that they have people who are clueless in their | company and don't respect their customers | | Given the target market of their product I would expect any | such attempt to be quickly found so I guess there's not that | much risk to use them | r1ch wrote: | If you can live with only 802.11ac, I've had great results | flashing OpenWRT onto Mikrotik wAP AC boards. Performance peaks | at about ~400mbps TCP throughput at 2x2 MCS-9. WPA3 works | without problems. For multi-ap, setting up 802.11r is fairly | straightforward, k/v requires some custom scripting to generate | the neighbor reports. Be careful not to get the new revision | with the two chain radio as the chipset is different and not | yet supported by OpenWRT. | dddw wrote: | Mikrotik. Maybe? | dialamac wrote: | CommScope Ruckus? | asdff wrote: | I've seen a few articles that use a raspberry pi in fact | chenxiaolong wrote: | I'm looking for the same as well. I've heard good things about | actual enterprise APs, though they seem to be quite expensive. | Ruckus APs are 4x the price of my current Ubiquiti APs. | | I'll probably do more research into this when Wi-Fi 6E becomes | more commonplace. For now, I just block outbound internet | access on the management network for my Ubiquiti APs and | controller. | tomhoward wrote: | Such fond memories using these on the ADSL2+ internet services we | started getting in Australia in the mid 2000s! | keanebean86 wrote: | I knew a dude in college that was trying to set up a campus wide | mesh network (he worked in IT) with these. The college bought | some and he started working on it. | | Then 2008 happened and he got laid off. It was a cool idea but | long term would have been a burden. | jandrese wrote: | Also, he would have discovered eventually that mesh networks | are slow and can't support many simultaneous users. For general | Internet access they aren't a great solution. | geocrasher wrote: | Its spiritual successor was the Asus RTN-16. I still have one | sitting on my bench, running TomatoUSB. I got it 9 years ago, and | for the past 5 years it's been a 2.4ghz wifi bridge, connecting | the hardwired devices in my office to the wifi router in my | house. It just keeps working, so I keep using it. | | Of course I can't forget the first time I got a WRT54G. My | brother in law had one just sitting around unused (around 2006 I | think) and while I didn't know a lot about them, I asked him | about the router. I ended up trading him a well used laptop for | it. The router was the locked down version. Then it died. Oh | well. | WorldMaker wrote: | One fascinating sidebar in the WRT54G history was the Fon [0] | "Fonera" project, which was one of the reasons I bought WRT54G | specifically. (Which I found in a box just recently, Fon stickers | beside it.) Fon had the idea of trying to build a network of | independent residential wifi that users could share roaming among | each other. It was a paid wifi network, so people that had a | Fonera AP at home could opt for either free access wherever they | went as benefit of running an AP or a simple profit sharing | option (but then they'd pay for their own roaming). | | The original Fonera projects were all built on top of OpenWRT. | | It was cute idea for trying to make guest-accessible wifi | ubiquitous. It ran up against shifts in law in some countries | making network AP owners more personally responsible for accesses | to their wifi. Also, it never really hit network effects that the | scale mattered. I ran a Fonera AP through a large chunk of | college/grad school and can't say that I ever saw another AP in | the wild to take advantage of the free roaming (and if I had it | switched to the profit-sharing mode I never would have seen a | dime). | | Fon pivoted entirely out of the Fonera residential wifi project | in 2016. It was a neat idea, but it didn't survive. | | [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fon_(company) | usertrjx wrote: | I don't recall which wifi router I used, but also I setup | fonera for about a week. I also don't believe I ever saw one in | the wild. I thought it was an interesting idea. | ryandrake wrote: | I don't know why WiFi AP manufacturers don't just give up and | just use stock open source firmware on their devices. They are | not even trying to get the sw right. The first thing I do when | buying one anymore is ditch the built in tinker-toy firmware and | install an open source one. Lots of companies that make hardware | treat software as just another line item on the BOM like a bolt | or a screw, and source the cheapest shit they can find, rather | than treating the software as an integral part of the product | that needs the same polish as the external box and marketing | materials. | mook wrote: | I had a Buffalo router that did that; IIRC it came with their | proprietary firmware and a copy of DD-WRT on a CD. (Might have | been the other way around; this was about a decade ago.) | | I don't believe they would have been in much legal issues: | they'd have to make sure the copy of DD-WRT they shipped was | fine, but if you get updates / flash your own, there's no | reason they'd be on the hook. | njharman wrote: | It's probably mostly due to legal liability. Real or perceived. | It's gonna be risky to convince a jury you did your fiduciary | duty to either consumers or stockholders when opposing lawyer | is saying "so you subjected my client's data to you didn't even | write? Code anyone one on internet can change at anytime, etc. | etc. | | legal is not about what is true or right or fair or probably it | is about risk reduction/mitigation. A 20% chance to lose court | case is too much. Or even chance of bad PR is something to be | avoided. | boomboomsubban wrote: | If this were the issue you'd think there would already be a | series of lawsuits against the free software drivers | currently available. | cbozeman wrote: | LOL, Yeah like all the open-source software that drives 95% | of the Internet? | | If this _could_ be done, it _would_ have been done already. | cryptonym wrote: | Doubt... Look at all the CVE on that kind of hardware, | limited liability and actual loss of control to contractors. | In this case, leading to not knowing you are actually selling | Open Source technology. | | Look at the longevity of this router and all the features: | "it was the perfect way to turn your $60 router into a $600 | router". With closed firmware, you can artificially lock | features and prevent everyone from adding them to cheap | devices. You can also stop updating firmware after few years | so everyone trash old devices and buy a new one. | | Fun fact: Open Source is good for the environment. | hobofan wrote: | > You can also stop updating firmware after few years so | everyone trash old devices and buy a new one. | | Routers aren't really the kind of devices that become | obsolete quickly though, are they? A bulk of all users will | just use they one they will get from their ISP. Since the | main interest of ISPs is reduce ongoing costs for support | (reduce calls to hotline and sending out technicians for | the setup of a new router), they should also be motivated | to provide cheap, long lived routers. | aksss wrote: | They are motivated to provide cheap, managed, reliable, | plug-and-play units. Changes are driven by feature sets | they need to stay competitive (eg new WiFi or wps | standard) and wholesale deals. | asddubs wrote: | only kind of hardware where this seems to be commonplace is 3d | printers. super modular in general, you can usually just swap | in hardware from one machine to the next, unless it's a super | commercial grade machine. I get the principle doesn't transfer | as well to other devices in all cases, but I wish more stuff | was like that | IshKebab wrote: | Probably because they can ensure their software works properly. | I recently dug out an old Asus RT-N16 and the latest Tomato | firmwares are all completely broken. WAN DHCP doesn't work. | Took me a couple of hours to figure out. Turns out it was | broken a year or two ago and nobody has noticed (it's a pretty | old router; I doubt anyone still uses it). The official | firmware worked fine. | | The point is the manufacturers have a much higher incentive to | ensure everything works than open source developers. | | The ASUS firmware at least seems to support way more features | than Tomato did, at least without resorting to the command | line. E.g. my ISP requires the VLAN ID to be set. I doubt open | source router GUIs have a nice option for that. | ZoomZoomZoom wrote: | It's not _that_ old, works tolerably for a small household if | the link speed is below 100Mbps. Freshtomato worked fine last | time I checked. Too bad these chips suffer performance loss | with OpenWRT, though. | | The sad thing is ten years later the market is still | dominated by devices with half its RAM. | sleavey wrote: | FRITZboxes are better in terms of their software. The names and | descriptions for the various controls are written in proper | language, and there are loads of graphs and stats for the | nerds. My only gripes are that the interface relies too much on | JavaScript (you get sent back to the login when you refresh the | page...) and that, at least on my model, there is no way to | perform a factory reset without plugging in a phone handset | (who has one of those these days!). | | Of course, OpenWRT still kills it in terms of support for | standards. FRITZboxes have their own stupid mesh protocol | that's only compatible with other FRITZboxes, not implementing | e.g. 802.11s. | maweki wrote: | To be fair, the FRITZ suite also wants to (and does) support | Cable internet (afaik the only non-ISP-supplied modem or | router-modem you could even buy in europe), DECT, and a range | of 433MHz home automation products. And of course, you | mentioned their homebrew mesh stuff. | | So there's a lot of non-standard tech available in those | boxes and it is no huge surprise that this is kept | proprietary. | zoobab wrote: | I ordered a router from Amazon when someone said it was running | Linux. I received it, and gave it to my uni friend on Friday. On | Sunday, he told me he found an exploit in the webinterface. | yial wrote: | I still have one of these in a box. Maybe two as I used to | encourage friends to buy them years ago. | | I only stopped using it(with some custom firmware) about a year | and a half ago because it was just too slow - and had gotten this | weird issue where it would cut off the internet to some devices | while keeping them on the network. | | It was really by luck that I had one of these in my teenage years | initially to play with. I sometimes wonder what hobbies I would | have developed if I hadn't lucked out and found working computer | in the trash, or my parents had bought something that wasn't such | an easily moddable desktop (AMD K6-2 was the CPU in the first | computer they purchased). | | Anyway - the WRT54G really was a fun piece of hardware to play | with. | BearOso wrote: | > because it was just too slow | | The WAN to LAN throughput on a wrt54g is only like 34mbits/s. | It's just too slow to handle a fast internet connection. I | guess the fact that so many are still being used shows how ISP | connection speeds have stagnated. | guenthert wrote: | Or that there simply is no need for that high a bandwidth. | Netflix, e.g., uses fancy compression algorithms and you can | _almost_ watch their HD offerings with ~3mbps. They do | recommend 5mbps and 25mbps for their 4k content. | | I so wished, I could get here a 6mbps connection for half the | price of my current 65mps line. | SulfurHexaFluri wrote: | You might not have a need for it but others do. It really | sucks to buy a new game after work and see that you won't | be able to play it that night because it has a 5 hour | download time. | Jonnax wrote: | So there's a need for it, it's just that you don't have a | need for it. | | I'm happy with my 1gbps connection where I can download a | 50GB game in less than 10 minutes. | renewiltord wrote: | Bro, when I want to play games with friends I frequently | have to update to play because I play so rarely. Speed | means lower latency to startup. | zerd wrote: | I'm still running a WRT54GL with Tomato firmware on at my | parents place. I used it until I upgraded to a faster one, but | the reason it's still running is that it provides the longest | 2.4GHz range which is perfect for a large house. I've tried | Ubiquity, newer ASUS routers and the range is shorter and their | devices prefers to connect to the WRT54G. And my parents don't | need super fast wifi, just a stable one. | joshstrange wrote: | If you still want to live that WRT life with something like | OpenWRT/LEDE (I think they re-merged now just under OpenWRT but | I'm running LEDE currently) then I can highly recommend this | [0] updated version. I have it and I can get gigabit speeds | (wired) through it just fine and don't have any issues with the | wireless other than at the far, far end of my house and only | sometimes. | | My next router will probably be a Ubiquity setup so I can setup | 2-3 AP's for full coverage and coverage out to the (detached) | garage but that setup is not cheap or simple and my current | issues are so minor that it will be a while before I pull the | trigger on that. | | [0] https://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/B01JOXW3YE/ | williesleg wrote: | Great story, shit writing. | temac wrote: | How is respecting the licence of software you use an accident and | a problem? The managers who believe that are completely insane. | Even the market segmentation theory: you can not just sell | perfectly capable hardware but artificially limited by software | to a very narrow set of features and pretend you care about e.g. | limited natural resources. Likewise attempting to limit the | hackability (and reparability) of devices is starting to look | criminal in my eyes. | EvanAnderson wrote: | The highly coveted WRT54G! | | I picked up a number of these at thrift stores over the years. | Occasionally I'd get lucky and get the "WRT54GL" version. I was | sometimes persuaded to exceed my "$5 or less" budget for a "L" | version. | | They were great for having a little Linux-box to do oddball | utility stuff-- ad-hoc OpenVPN endpoints, caching DNS server, | captive Wi-Fi portal controller. | | They were eerily solid for their built-to-a-price-point nature. | bityard wrote: | A few years back, I spotted two of these for $0.50 at the | thrift store amongst all the outdated DSL modems and answering | machines. My tech hoard was already large enough at that point | so I made sure they worked, flashed the factory firmware, and | turned around and sold them for $25 each on craigslist in under | 24 hours. Easiest beer money I ever made. | paulcarroty wrote: | Great device. Remember my first time experience with hackable | router using openwrt, it was like miracle. I'm not feeling | comfortable anymore when working with vendor-locked platforms. | Aachen wrote: | TL;DR they used GPL software and so had to provide the derivative | work back to the community, latest upon request. That's how it | went "accidentally" open source, if you want to save a click bait | click, no source code was stolen or accidentally posted publicity | or anything. | aksss wrote: | Haha you know somebody there was like, "shit! This is what | Microsoft warned us about!" I can only imagine that spawned a | backlash internally against open source until they realized how | popular the router became. It was nice of them to make the | homage WRT several years ago. Maybe I should go read the | article. Like many here I had (and probably still have!) a 54 | series and ran ddwrt on it. Very liberating to realize half the | functionality I wanted wasn't in any way a hardware limitation, | just software. After that, my next routers were purchased with | careful attention to the amount of RAM and nv memory onboard as | well as the device compatibility table. Now I run UBNT in the | house on the ER platform with unifi stack on a VM that rarely | gets turned on except to manage fw upgrades of the radios. | tfvlrue wrote: | Even though I've since switched all my networking gear to | Ubiquiti stuff these days, I still have fond memories of using | DD-WRT on the WRT54GL. Being able to configure dynamic DNS and | host a VPN server was an amazing thing when you had a handful of | routers to remotely manage (parents, etc). And the replacement | firmware made them so much more stable than stock. Gone were the | days of the Internet dying and having to reboot the router to get | it back. | | I still have a few unused WRT54GL lying around that I never got | around to using. Funny to think they're still selling on Amazon | for the same price they were a decade ago! | | In case anyone doubts my adoration for this router, take a look | at https://tfvlrue.wordpress.com/2010/01/08/lego-router- | wrt54gl... :) | wejick wrote: | I remember around 2006-2009 playing with this wireless router. I | thought back then it was pretty cool, an enterprisey colored | device with cisco logo on the front. | | That was the first time I learned about networking. Did pretty | standard setting, like dhcp server and ip address of the port. We | also put it on the point to point wireless network with the range | of 10s KM, using grid antennas. | | That was quite early in Indonesian internet scene. | theandrewbailey wrote: | I brought a WRT54G to college, and left it with some roomies when | I moved out. I think I had OpenWRT on it. It sucked that no | custom firmware supported the D-Link I bought to replace it. I | finally got fed up with it, and I've been using another router | with OpenWRT for many years. | bsharitt wrote: | Man I used one of those forever, I think I finally threw it out | once 100Mb switch and G wifi wasn't quite enough. Tomato was | probably my favorite firmware for it. I remember bricking it with | a bad update one time and having to jumper two pins with a paper | clip to put it in tftp mode in order to load working firmware. | bartvk wrote: | A buddy of mine got divorced and found himself in a tiny | apartment with ethernet and not a router. I dug up my WRT54G | but yeah, G wifi... In the end, we found an unused TP-Link | Archer C7 for him, but that WRT54G brought back some memories. | ginko wrote: | It's one of the most successful routers ever sold and yet network | equipment manufacturers are still fighting tooth and nail to keep | their devices closed source. It just doesn't make sense to me. | Maxburn wrote: | That's why I'm so impressed with OPNsense and pfSense and a | wide selection of build it yourself hardware selection with | them. You can own and tinker with your own router top to | bottom. Seems like a niche market and I'm wondering why they | aren't catching on with this same community that embraced the | WRT. | jabl wrote: | I think those that want to run an open source software stack, | but not assemble the hardware themselves, are served pretty | well by going to the OpenWrt website (the successor project | around the original wrt54g open source release), and choosing | a suitable router from the table of hardware they maintain, | and then just install openwrt on top of the stock firmware. | | That's what I've been doing ever since I jumped ship from ye | olde WRT54G (currently I have a Zyxel Armor Z2, and I'm happy | with it). | Maxburn wrote: | I never dove into the WRT devices myself but it definitely | has a niche. | 0x0000000 wrote: | FWIW, "assemble the hardware themselves" means buy a > 5 | year old desktop computer and add a multi-port PCI-express | NIC. Or even a USB3 -> Ethernet adapter. | | Moving to pfSense was the best decision I made for my home | network. | icelancer wrote: | You can even buy one of these ready-made boxes and slap | on pfsense. | | https://smile.amazon.com/Firewall-Appliance-Gigabit- | Celeron-... | | I use this exact model + RAM + mSATA drive and its more | than powerful enough to sit in front of my SMB gigabit | fiber connection while running DPI/OpenVPN/zabbix/etc. | | pfsense is awesome and the learning curve is pretty | reasonable if you understand basic network theory. I love | it. | sq_ wrote: | Wonder if there's a chance some of the router projects and | Pine64 could collaborate somehow to make a fully open router. | Pine64 seems to be quickly developing some production chops | and the various router projects also seem to be doing great | work. | yellowapple wrote: | If Pine64 threw a bunch of Ethernet ports into a | Clusterboard that'd be a pretty killer platform for a | router. Start with one SOPINE for the actual router stuff, | then add more for things like NAS, print servers, home | streaming, home automation, etc. | pimeys wrote: | Turris Omnia is supposedly one of these routers. I have | their old model from a few years back, and it's been | serving quite well for all my needs. The OS is their custom | version of OpenWRT, and you can do stuff like LXC, | Wireguard and all that quite easily. | | The only problem is the ARMv7 hardware, which doesn't | really cut it with modern Internet speeds anymore, | especially with Wireguard. | | That said, I can't wait for pfSense and opnSense finally | support Wireguard. And pihole should finally get a FreeBSD | version. I'd much more prefer the sense systems over the | wrt, but the time is not yet here. | Decade wrote: | I think the big motivation for the Omnia is the Turris | project, not open source per se. Security threat analysis | and automatic updates from the nonprofit organization | that runs the Czech DNS registrar. LXC, Wireguard, and | the customization options from the mini-PCIe slots are a | bit of a bonus. | | The Omnia doesn't have great OpenWRT upstream support, | and the wireless performance sucks. 2GB of RAM seems | enormous for a router, but when I put a medium-size | number of clients on it (100-ish), its security | monitoring features overran the memory and oom-killed | essential services. Fortunately, that can be turned off. | | And the Turris project seems to be retreating from modern | Internet speeds. The Omnia can't keep up with 1Gb full- | duplex fiber, but they've moved onto their next product: | The MOX/Shield is even slower. (1.6 GHz CPU vs 1.0 GHz | CPU) | Maxburn wrote: | ANY more work in this space would be great. The SG1100 | seems similar already though. Most configs of the Pine64 | I'm looking at are single Ethernet port though, I'm not a | fan of the router on stick config, even the one in the | SG1100 is confusing internally. | zajio1am wrote: | PC Engines makes a long-term series of pretty open router | boards that works with vanilla Debian, current iteration is | APU2: https://www.pcengines.ch/apu2.htm | | It is pricier than low-end router, but they are high | performance and are much easier to use. | izacus wrote: | I'd love to find a compact router/machine that has | SFP/Gigabit switch and optionally PoE capability with pfSense | support. | | Sadly, my annoying Mikrotik is the only thing I've found | until now :( | Maxburn wrote: | That's a big wish list for compact. | zamadatix wrote: | It's 3 common things, one of which marked optional. The | only "big wish" on that is the desire to run decent | software of the users choice on it which is a big wish | for anything except a PC-turned-network-device. | izacus wrote: | I know. Mikrotik managed to build it though (HeX PoE), | but sadly it has a pretty old SoC. | harha wrote: | I would love to see some more prebuilt pfsense boxes with | useful options (like built-in 4G) - there are some on Amazon | without detailed specs and some small vendors that don't feel | like shipping in all of the EU (can't blame them for the | regulatory and tax challenges). | Maxburn wrote: | I believe the underlying BSD is the issue here, everyone | that says they tried to do it says it is an awful | experience. Similar story for the problems with realtek | Ethernet chips. | harha wrote: | For the 4G? It's not ideal but there are some options [0] | - though the list would be nicer if it had a few filters, | like interface and supported bands. | | [0] https://docs.netgate.com/pfsense/en/latest/cellular/h | ardware... | m-p-3 wrote: | Especially when they stop pushing firmware updates and leave | the whole thing open to become part of a botnet. | | Seriously, keep the damn thing open. | jandrese wrote: | This. It drives me crazy that companies want to lock down the | firmware, but then won't take responsibility for keeping | their locked down firmware from being taken over by bots. If | they hate maintaining the software so much let the community | take over. | | If I were a AP manufacturer I would have like 1 software guy | total, and his job would be to make sure the drivers for the | hardware is always up to date on the open source software | that my product ships, and to contribute bug fixes and | feature improvements to that software. | | Well, I like to think that anyway. I have some suspicions | that chipset manufacturers like to keep their documentation | behind NDA that precludes anybody who signs it from | contributing to open source software. | SulfurHexaFluri wrote: | Neither of those options push the user to buy a new router | every few years. | znpy wrote: | the WRT3200ACM is available for purchase, is an almost-direct | descendant of the WRT54GL and is supported out of the box by | OpenWRT/Linux. | earthscienceman wrote: | Does OpenWRT implement some of the more obscure features, | like MIMO and what not? I'm still using DDWRT on a Trendnet | AC1750 supported router. I definitely don't _need_ much more | but I could use some bandwidth and power range for local | transfers and such. | icelancer wrote: | I used these before I switched to pfsense at my SMB. They're | great. I use the WRT3200ACM at home + a UniFi AP for better | range upstairs and have been very pleased. | yellowapple wrote: | Yep, those are pretty much all I buy nowadays for home / | small office routers. Absolutely rock solid. | guenthert wrote: | Well, the original WRT54GL (Linux version with 8MiB RAM) cost | me ~$50 when it was new, the WRT3200ACM is offered for $250. | A descendant perhaps, but no replacement. | orthoxerox wrote: | I really like my Xiaomi Mi 3G. Cheap, has both 802.11ac and | 1Gbps ports, runs OpenWRT. The only issue I have with it is | no AES support on the CPU. My VPN speed is effectively | limited by one of its cores running at 100% decoding | OpenVPN traffic. | Teever wrote: | I recommend buying the WRT1200AC used on Ebay. They usually | sell for $30-50 USD + shipping. | Snitch-Thursday wrote: | Correct. That's why I sought it out and may or may not have | baffled / actively disregarded the Best Buy sales guy who | wanted to sell some other routing hardware that was 'newer'. | | This message delivered to you with its help, and I am | definitely going to be looking for its descendant when the | time comes to replace this one....IF it is still open-source- | ready. | unethical_ban wrote: | On the other hand, Ubiquiti has given end users an option for | business class wireless and routing that wasn't available. You | want a "real" router in 2005? eBay > Cisco. | ip26 wrote: | It's funny, Ubiquiti keeps getting talked up on HN, but every | time I try to shop for their equipment out of curiosity, it's | basically panned everywhere else. Don't know what to make of | it. | 293984j29384 wrote: | I treat it as prosumer grade equipment. I use it at home | but not at the office. My general rule of thumb is if I | need it to make money, it's not going to be Ubiquiti. | lotsofpulp wrote: | I don't think there's any good options outside of | commercial brands. If my Airport Time Machine and Extreme | die, I'll probably switch to premium Netgear equipment. | | Meraki would be nice except Cisco owns it now and they are | experts at milking you with annual fees. | josteink wrote: | > If my Airport Time Machine and Extreme die, I'll | probably switch to premium Netgear equipment. | | Why just replace them with second hand units? | | _Apple_ may no longer sell them, but they are still | widely available. | lotsofpulp wrote: | I assumed I wouldn't easily find them, but I will get | them if I can! | jandrese wrote: | If you're doing serious business with your WiFi then the | UBNT stuff is probably not quite good enough. | | I have one of the flying saucer shaped APs, but it's super | old and only does B/G. It was under a hundred bucks and | unlike my old APs it doesn't get angry at certain devices | and deauth them randomly from the network. Or other APs | I've used that start disconnecting users once you have more | than 15 devices connected at once. The configuration | software is a bloated Java daemon that I have to manually | start then connect to with a client. It's not all that user | friendly, but I've been around networks enough to get it | working. | | So it's basically the cheapest AP that isn't regularly | malfunctioning consumer garbage. | icelancer wrote: | I use a pfsense box (check comments for link) but Ubiquiti | gear for WiFi APs/controller/PoE/switches. Been very happy | with the setup despite the latest concerns with them posted | here. | | Their security gateways are universally hated on, and for | good reason - one major one is that enabling DPI causes a | ridiculous drop in throughput rate, even on the newer | machines (which also have faulty firmware). Stay away from | them. | Decade wrote: | I feel it's really pervasively good marketing, and maybe | the performance was better back when the WiFi link was not | usually the bottleneck. (Ref: Bufferbloat, hard to verify | because Ubiquiti flouts open-source licenses.) | samgranieri wrote: | I have UBNT gear at home, and have had it for four years to | replace my apple AirPort Extreme. I got rid of the AirPort | Extreme because I thought apple would abandon it. I've been | very happy with the UBNT platform since. I do wish there | would be a decent upgrade to the USG 3 coming soon | Mister_Snuggles wrote: | /r/homelab, which is where I heard about it, seems to like | it. | | I've had UniFi equipment for a while now and am generally | happy with it, though I'm not doing anything terribly | crazy. Well, maybe crazy for a home user, but not nearly as | crazy as some of the /r/homelab folks get. | | I've got multiple VLANs, firewall rules controlling | traffic, multiple WiFi networks. I'm using 2 switches (8 | port 150W PoE, 24 port non-PoE), a USG, and an AP AC Pro. | It all works fine. | | My only complaint is that the new version of the controller | software rearranged all of the settings and I haven't | figured out where everything lives. | vetinari wrote: | You can (still) switch back to old settings in the new | controller. The latest one switched the client view to a | newer one too, but fortunately the old one is also | available. | unethical_ban wrote: | I work in IT, and I and several others use UBNT. I have not | had any reliability issues, but you do not want to be hasty | with version upgrades unless you need it to fix a bug. Read | release notes. | | I have an Edgemax ER-Lite router and a UAC-AP-Pro access | point, and a security camera for testing. | | If you can, it's best to stick with one lineup of products. | Unifi is one line, edgemax is another, amplifi is another, | and so on - having one management plane is optimal. I have | thought about getting a Unifi router so everything is done | through one control center, but I don't _need_ to. | | tl;dr - I think they are great for the money. You can do | advanced stuff with the routers as well, like VPN gateways | and BGP if needed, but not always easily in the GUI. | kazen44 wrote: | the bgp implementation on all ubiquiti's products is a | tangled mess. it hogs CPU, is unstable and does not | support most "nice bgp features". | tda wrote: | Yep, that's because it is a mixed bag. Certainly a step up | from normal consumer grade stuff, and not as expensive as | 'real' enterprise hardware. Had a lot of promise, and lots | of hn folks like myself converted. | | But I said had, because in 2020 the company seems to have | transformed into a money-grabbing shitshow. Cloud for | everything, deprecating fine hardware and fine software in | favor of unneeded cloud stuff. Crappy firmwares with no | easy way to rollback. CEO is supposedly running the company | in the ground with outsourcing, constant crunch etc. There | are some disgruntled ex ubiquity employees here and on | reddit, if even half is true of what they say the company | really needs to turn around soon, it is probably already to | late. | dingaling wrote: | > Certainly a step up from normal consumer grade stuff | | Same mass-market Qualcomm SOCs as the other mass-market | vendors, just better packaged and marketed. | | Smallnetbuilder consistently found them middling in | performance. | atombender wrote: | Me neither. I switched out my trusty old Microtik AC router | for a combination of a Unifi AP AC Pro and UniFi Security | Gateway in order to get a bit more distance, and | performance and reliability has been shoddy. | | I eventually got a TP-Link WiFi 6 AX3000, and it's been | super solid, significantly faster, and required almost zero | manual setup. The Unifi itself required a PoE adapter and a | router, and of course needs the controller application to | do anything. | | (The controller app with its easily-corrupted and hard-to- | upgrade MongoDB database is perhaps the worst part of it. | My _two_ devices occasionally required re- "adopting" for | no discernible reason. I was unable to upgrade the | controller at one point because apparently (?) they stopped | bundling MongoDB, and the controller refused to use the | version I installed manually. Of course, this breakage | happened after the software updated, so the only way to fix | it was by restoring the old version and database files from | backups.) | | Maybe Ubiquiti products make more sense when you need | dozens of access points across a big building, but | definitely not in a small city apartment. | Tijdreiziger wrote: | I don't think that's an environment in which Ubiquiti | gear makes sense. It's much more useful for the people | who have a 3-story house and have to have a separate | downstairs and upstairs Wi-Fi network to get decent | coverage. | vetinari wrote: | It is useful even in apartments: you can have your router | near entrance, where the ISP terminates, and then AP | elsewhere in the apartment, where you can get better | reception for your devices. | atombender wrote: | Agree, but I would at least expect performance and | reliability to be better than a consumer router. | LgWoodenBadger wrote: | What do you mean when you say "the Unifi itself | required...a router?" | | The Unifi Security Gateway is a router. | atombender wrote: | Sorry, the AC. | LgWoodenBadger wrote: | Any access-point-only device will require that, it's not | a unique requirement to the Unifi access points. | vetinari wrote: | Many APs are routers. Unifi ones are bridges. | atombender wrote: | Of course. But it could be a lot simpler, too. For | example, USG doesn't have PoE (only the EdgeRouter X | does, I think), and the AC itself doesn't have a power | adapter. Both things would have made things simpler. | | My wish is for a prosumer wireless router that's rock | stable. I've burned through numerous routers that all | have had weird issues. The closest I've gotten was my | Microtik AC Lite, which I loved, but it doesn't have an | external antenna, so its range was questionable. | vetinari wrote: | Didn't your AC ship with an injector? | | AFAIK, only the 5-piece package ships without injector, | the individual ones do have it. | atombender wrote: | No injector came in the box. I remember reading forum | discussions about it at the time that explained which | models/packages came with the injector, but I forget what | they said. | vetinari wrote: | That's bummer. | | I've purchased only nano-HDs and AC-lites, and they all | came with one in the box. What didn't have any is | Cloudkey 2 Plus. I had to get a third-party injector for | that one (or Quickcharge USB charger with USB-C cable - I | went with injector). | na85 wrote: | I have ubiquiti gear for my home network. It's pretty good | for what it is, which is basically "consumer networking | gear for power users" but I'm not sure I'd use ubiquiti to | do serious networking for an enterprise environment. Maybe | a small business/doctor's office type of environment. | nashashmi wrote: | Some routers openly tout the hackability of their routers to | add open source firmware as a selling point. But those were | also relatively expensive. | pyvpx wrote: | because working through the absolute trash fire that has been | closed source merchant silicon SDKs was/is a competitive | advantage. | | things like P4 will move the competitive advantages farther up | the stack where they belong | NullPrefix wrote: | Yes, it may very well be the most successful router ever sold, | but have you thought about how many new models were NOT sold | because the oldie WRT54G was chugging along all too well? | Mauricebranagh wrote: | But think of the economies of scale and the $ saved in terms | of RnD and marketing | mywittyname wrote: | Cisco didn't want a threat to their lucrative enterprise | market. | | Imagine if they kept pumping out updated hardware | supporting DD-WRT over the years, and eventually captured | 80+% of the home networking market. Now consider that, | during that time, a generation of future networking | engineers cut their teeth on hi-po Linksys home routers, | giving Linksys a segue into the lucrative enterprise market | as this generation of people started gaining influence. | | This ended up being one of magical events that could have | been the turning point for a small, unknown company to take | on a giant, and win. Instead, the opportunity was squished | through a smart acquisition by Cisco. | kazen44 wrote: | while i understand your argument, enterprise/ISP routers | have completely different functionality then home | devices. most people in the network engineering field cut | their teeth on enterprise gear in lower level positions. | | for instance, home routers do data and control plane | processing on a single CPU with no or very little NPU | involved, while enterprise gear has this functionality. | | not to mention the large array of technologies that are | not even usable in small scale networks like VXLAN, BGP, | IPVPN etc.. | mobilio wrote: | I'm still using one WRT54GL 1.0 in rural area. | | Because it just works and refuse do die. | midasuni wrote: | That's a terrible product to sell in today's world | bitcharmer wrote: | Care to explain why a product that does what it's | supposed to is terrible to sell in today's world? | Hallucinaut wrote: | I believe it was a sardonic expression on bucking the | inexorable trend towards consumerism and recurring- | purchase/subscriptions | SulfurHexaFluri wrote: | Products need to fail or become undesirable to use after | 3 years so you buy a new one. | bostik wrote: | If its success has kept uncountable, "segmented" garbage | devices from ever entering the market, I'd say WRT has been | even better for the consumers than you think. | enchiridion wrote: | I think you both agree. | | Unfortunately what is good for consumers in this case is | bad for companies, because it reduces long term sales. | therealx wrote: | Thanks for connecting those dots for me. | hyperman1 wrote: | I'd think there must be another reason. Almost anything a | corporation does is optimizing for the next quarter. | Sales 2 years in the future are a problem for the next | set of CxO's | | Some candidate reasons: Open source is still to different | and hence risky. Or maybe arrogance and not invented here | syndrome. | unicornporn wrote: | True dat. | | (Message sent via WRT54GL) | [deleted] | hungryforcodes wrote: | Certainly that's a good thing though. Conserving resources | and discouraging needless waste of perfectly functional | products is a good thing. | asdff wrote: | Good for the world, bad for the capitalists. Guess who wins | in the end? | tandr wrote: | I would continue to buy their newer routers if they have open | firmware a la WRT54G. New wifi standards came out, had to | install routers for friends and family, and WRT54G itself | kind of died after 3 or 4 years... (I bought a second one, | but by then N standard was up and running, so 3rd was not | Linksys) | sonotmyname wrote: | You can buy a new WRT today that supports FOSS firmware out of | the box - https://www.linksys.com/us/wireless-routers/c/wrt- | wireless-r... | | And yet Linksys (and others) still sell their closed routers as | well. One can only concluded that the Open Source support, | while important for a niche group, is not enough for market | dominance... | hhh wrote: | I had a WRT1900AC for several years. It was a very nice | product, with very good community support. | | Official support, however, was not good in my experience. | Several years later I finally bought a Ubiqui Dream Machine | Pro, and absolutely love it. Kinda miffed that they suffered | a breach a month after I bought it, though. | merlinscholz wrote: | I recently sold my UDMP and bought some mikrotik gear, | because the device hat very tight limits on what ubiquiti | wants you to do with it. No wireguard was an annoyance I | could live with, but disabling NAT was not possible and a | switch backplane running at 1gbps were the final blow. Also | I do not want to have to log into an online account to use | my (maybe airgapped) router. | sscarduzio wrote: | I'm curious about what Microtik router did you choose? | vetinari wrote: | The older Unifi routers, USG-3 and USGPRO-4, can run | wireguard. The annoyance is, that you must configure it | via config.gateway.json file and reinstall it after each | firmware update. They also run without cloud accounts. | | Pity that Ubiquiti goes the wrong direction with their | newer products. | jcpham2 wrote: | still rocking the wrt1900 and openwrt/lede | lostlogin wrote: | I've dithered on the UDM-P, the reviews are very mixed. | | I'm in a strange place with UniFi as a whole, as my APs are | limiting download speeds to about 275mbps while upload | speed is line speed, as is wired speed. There is lots on | forums and Reddit about strange issues like this with | Ubiquiti and they could really do with some firming up of | their software. | hinkley wrote: | Linksys is owned by Cisco, and I don't know what they do now, | but at the time a Cisco low-end router had no specialty | hardware to run a lot of their features. Those features were | implemented in software. | | So openwrt threatens their entry level and some of their mid- | range devices, creating a conflict of interests. | clashandcarry wrote: | Linksys is currently owned by Foxconn. | | https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/26/17166272/foxconn-buys- | bel... | jgalt212 wrote: | Both were then subsequently sold to the Sheinhardt Wig | Company. | Forge36 wrote: | This feels like it needs a graph to explain what went | where. | filmgirlcw wrote: | Cisco hasn't owned Linksys since 2013. Belkin bought it | from Cisco and kept the brand. | walrus01 wrote: | If you really want a small fully open source router these days, | you can build your own VyOS (evolution of Vyatta) install ISO, | which is fully open source, and install it on some small x86-64 | system with multiple 1/10GbE interfaces. Or install pfsense, | which is also fully open source. | tenebrisalietum wrote: | It's why I decided to make my current router a full PC running | Linux with a couple of NICs and am looking into getting | wireless working directly on it. | duskwuff wrote: | > looking into getting wireless working directly on it. reply | | This is, unfortunately, pretty hard to do well. 5 GHz AP | support is particularly complicated, as the AP is required to | take some special steps to avoid interfering with other | services using the band, including weather radar. Most | consumer cards don't implement these steps, limiting them to | operating as a client on those frequencies. | tenebrisalietum wrote: | I got a QCA986x/988x (forget exact model but that's what | lspci says) and I'm reading it works with ath10k driver. | Wish me luck. Really hope multiple BSSID works but that's | why I bought 2. | | I'm not throwing out my Asus access point yet. | Bluecobra wrote: | I've done this in the past and had great results. The only | downside is that running a regular PC drawing ~100W 24/7 can | easily add up to $100/year depending on electricity costs and | eventually an embedded device would pay itself off. | second--shift wrote: | I am running pfSense on a Supermicro X9SCL 1U pulling <40W, | with an old SSD as the bootdisk. gig nics & everything | else. | | Sure you can half the power draw again with an embedded | device, but diminishing marginal gain. | jaclaz wrote: | Can't say if it applies to your case, but as a | firewall/router I use a "thin client" with a TransMeta | processor, the actual model is Fujitsu Futro S, there | are/were several sub-models, mine is an old S220, it runs | Zeroshell (a Linux distro) with an added "normal" PCI | network cards and it is like 15W: | | https://www.parkytowers.me.uk/thin/Futro/s200/ | Accujack wrote: | The manufacturers are mostly run by people who were trained in | "standard" corporate governance. This includes the ways to | protect corporate revenue streams by suppressing (legally, of | course) competition, delivering a range of products by | producing the top end model and crippling it to sell at a | cheaper price point, and repeatedly reducing costs to increase | profits in a "race to the bottom". | | Until a new set of management philosophies is adopted for | teaching, a large number of companies will keep doing the same | thing, because in general corporate managers have a lead time | associated with them, and we won't run out of the old school | ones until 20+ years after philosophies change. | | This is an opportunity for anyone who can do things | differently, of course. | ownagefool wrote: | Your standard bigco manager also believes a whole bunch of | FUD about the lack of OSS secrity and what not, but it's 20 | years unless upstarts eat their market. | | Probably more likely for your average software company than | hardware, but I suspect there's an inflection point in cheap | hardware. | stereolambda wrote: | I see all this as a heartwarming story where a company was | forced, with a "trap" set by GPL and its philosophy, to offer | people for once a _square deal_ : good hardware, fairly | priced, you are free to do with it what you want. All this | serves human needs better and the manufacturer could in fact | turn a profit. | | There is a faint, faint glimmer of hope that this is a peek | of the far future of our techno-political-economic system. Of | course with very different laws around intellectual property, | company governance, customer protection, terms of | participating in the market etc. We might be as far from it | as the Enlightenment in 1750 (in a world built on overt | serfdom and not even fully developed colonialism) was from | the year 2000, but still. Makes me feel a teensy bit better | about doing the right thing today, just because. | woofie11 wrote: | I'm firmly convinced that if a Chinese maker made a 100% open | source keyboard or mouse, they could sell that for $30 | instead of $3, and establish a global brand to boot. | | Same thing for a lot of hardware, actually. Printers. | Scanners. Etc. | Decade wrote: | Isn't that basically Keyboardio? Except it's a San | Francisco company selling them for $150; expensive, but | still within reason for boutique mechanical keyboards. | k__ wrote: | Which is kinda ironic, since obviously router software is the | worst. | Mediterraneo10 wrote: | When routers are ordered in bulk from ISPs in certain | countries, the ISP is the customer, not the end user. The ISP | often doesn't want the end user to be able to do things like | enable IPv6 and things that could boost the effectiveness of | Bittorrent. A closed-source design ensures that only the ISP | can change certain settings. | londons_explore wrote: | I suspect it's more that when someone flashes a router with | custom firmware, they are far more likely to then spend hours | on the phone with tech support because they have messed up | the MTU settings or can't get VoIP to work because the the | SIP ALG isn't working properly anymore... | | For every person that delves into the internals who knows | what they're doing, there are 10 people who delve into the | internals following some incomplete and outdated online | heresay... | colejohnson66 wrote: | This is the real reason. 90+% of their customers are, for | lack of a better word, idiots when it comes to "hacking". | The ISP just doesn't want to deal with it. And for the 10-% | who _do_ know what they'd be doing, the ISP doesn't care | because it's another configuration they have to support. | | There's a reason ISPs won't help you if you hook your own | router up. It's not malicious. Just then doing what makes | sense from a financial and a training standpoint. | | It's scummy, but the Dunning-Kruger effect with tech is | very real. | tinus_hn wrote: | So they can say: | | Connect the modem we gave you with our settings, and if | it works using that it's not our problem. | | It's not that hard. | aksss wrote: | I would say 90% of their customers don't _want_ to be | hacking their router, and 90% of those that do don't | really know what they're doing. | colejohnson66 wrote: | Probably. And in that case, the ISP would be even more | justified in not supporting "non standard" | configurations. | cbozeman wrote: | I'm fine with that... if they can prove it. They have to | release stats that show what percentage of customers | called in _with a custom firmware_ and _how long it took | the techs to solve their issue_. | | I guaran-fucking-tee you someone smart enough to flash a | custom firmware will likely have scoured the Internet for | the answer first. Most of the time, they'll find their | answer somewhere on a forum / blog post. I would actually | be willing to bet money that technical support spends far | less time with these people than it does with older | customers who "can't be bothered with reading" or younger | customers who grew up in the "it just works" generation. | | There seems to be a middle ground of people, I think | we're called the Analog-To-Digital generation, that had | to actually put effort into learning technology, because | so much shit had to be manually configured, that we | gained a pretty solid understanding of tech and we don't | have the fear of it that I see in people even just five | years older than me (I'm 40), and the lack of interest in | digging around in the "guts" that I see in people far | younger than me (25 and under). | oarsinsync wrote: | > I guaran-fucking-tee you someone smart enough to flash | a custom firmware will likely have scoured the Internet | for the answer first. | | Or they followed a "how to get free movies/tv/sports" | guide which told them to follow these simple steps, and | something went wrong, and they have no idea what to do | next, and they're offline now too. | sumtechguy wrote: | When I was ~25 in the late 90s (now in my late 40s) I | spent 3 months with a 'custom' guy. He was going in and | re-writing our software stored procedures. They had to | work a particular way or the whole harry ball came flying | apart. 2 level one techs, 3 level two techs, 3 on site | rebuilds with 3 installers and 4 senior engineers. 3 | months of work. All because 1 dude decided to change | things out and did not follow our extensive docs and use | the people we dedicated to help him. All because he | wanted a feature but did not want to pay for it but did | not want to admit he broke the multi million dollar | system they bought. It was like an hour of work for me | and 1 line of code. But he jerked us around for months | and cost us thousands of dollars of time and work and | would scream at us for hours on end that nothing worked | because he broke it. | | BTW The dudes who worked the .COM boom/bust stuff are | hitting their 50s. When you are on your 15th uber | framework sometimes you just wing it and dig in only if | you have to. Or as I say to my fellow devs 'what useless | tech skill am I going to learn today that I did not want | to know about'. For my first couple of stacks I can tell | you everything you want to know for hours on end. For | current ones that passion is mostly gone. Crunched out of | me with endless meetings and forms to fill out. | syshum wrote: | The support angle is the party line for why they want to | own the boxes, but there has never been any actual data to | back this up. Further I do not see this being a real | problem, hell I use a custom router but if I have a problem | I have hook up the ISP router to talk to customer service, | I am fine with that. | | The real reason they want this is 2 fold | | 1. Money. it is always money. They want to be able to | advertise "Internet for only $30" but then tack on 20-30 in | "other fees" to get that bill up, $5-10 for a router is an | easy gain | | 2. Control. Companies like comcast have lots of control | over the endpoints to the point where they can manipulate | the firmware do do what ever they need for traffic | management or even offer public wifi access to all your | neighbors... | dialamac wrote: | 1 really doesn't hold water. Some ISPs in the US still | waive the fee if you don't rent equipment, so that doesnt | really strengthen the argument. I now have an ISP that | doesn't waive the fee but that doesn't matter either, | since it is not optional it is just part of the total | sunk cost. I still use my own router. | | Your whole argument doesn't hold water because even with | Comcast you can bring your own equipment. They don't go | out of their way to help you... but they don't stop you | either. Don't see how that is "control". | | Maybe you will not call tech support when your own | equipment fails but you clearly have no experience in a | support role if you think other people won't! | | Just spend some time on GitHub issues for more popular | open source projects to get an idea, and the multiply | that by at least 10 for the general public. | syshum wrote: | Both Comcast and my current ISP both simply refuse to | assist if you do not have their equipment. I have | experiences both "Please hook up your ISP provided router | and if you are still experiencing problems please call | back" | | Hell half the time they do not even help when you do have | their equipment. It took me 3 months of calling support | before my current ISP agreed to send a tech to look at my | ONT that was clearly resetting itself, Tech replaced the | ONT has not had any problems since. | | ISP, all ISP's, customer service is terrible, there is | not a ISP on the planet that has good service. Or atleast | in the US | aksss wrote: | I don't disagree with your points 1 and 2, but IME having | worked in telecom for more than a decade your point about | there being no data to back it up is wrong. Probably no | data that you have been privy to, yes. Your lack of | exposure to data does not equate to a lack of data. IME, | internal analysis of trouble tickets along with unit cost | is driving most moves by an ISP to make installation and | usability simple, automated, and specifically not result | in support calls. Remember that 90+% of their customers | have the expectation that it just works like a power | utility and buy their kids' gaming machines from Costco | and Walmart. They really don't care about config | customization and prioritize the assumption that it "just | works" far above their flexibility to load custom | firmware. | kortilla wrote: | > The ISP often doesn't want the end user to be able to do | things like enable IPv6 and things that could boost the | effectiveness of Bittorrent. | | In what country are ISPs blocking ipv6 because it makes | BitTorrent effective? | Mediterraneo10 wrote: | I didn't say that ISPs are disabling IPv6 because it has | any connection to Bittorrent, I said that IPv6, on one | hand, and Bittorent-accelerating features, on the other | hand, are two things that some ISPs in various countries | may want to block. | | For example, in Poland the router that Orange forced fiber | customers to accept for 2019 came with closed-source | firmware, and while there was a hack to enable IPv6, the | ISP - who alone had superuser privileges on the device - | issued a command to the router each night at midnight to | disable IPv6, because it considered IPv6 a "beta" feature | not meant for wide use (a limbo it has been stuck in for | years now). The customer, without access to the router | internals, had no way to permanently override it. | Fortunately, if I understand correctly, EU legislation is | phasing out any obligation to accept only the ISP-provided | router. | jrochkind1 wrote: | > As Lifehacker put it way back in 2006, it was the perfect way | to turn your $60 router into a $600 router, which likely meant | it was potentially costing Cisco money to have a device this | good on the market. | wpietri wrote: | It depends a lot on what you mean by successful. Was the WRT54G | successful in terms of sales numbers and value delivered to | users? Absolutely. But in terms of internal hype, ever- | increasing revenues, and executive promotions? Probably not. | creeble wrote: | I should test OpenWRT with my new multi-AP test setup. | | Many repeaters and pure (bridging) APs have an isolation problem | for clients that switch between them. TP-Link, Netgear, and a few | others suffer this problem. | | What happens is that when a wifi client moves from one AP to | another, the old AP doesn't update its device table, and the | client becomes unreachable from other clients on the old AP. This | only matters on networks that use a lot of LAN comms (Sonos, | AirPlay, etc), but it makes certain APs (and extenders) unusable | on those networks. | | Two that work right are Ubiquity and Eero, fwiw. | CharlesW wrote: | FWIW, I've had a Netgear Orbi system (1 base, 2 satellites) for | some time and haven't noticed any issues. | paraleopiped wrote: | Is there a list of useful hardware like this or tplink722 and | other similar stories? | cameronperot wrote: | I absolutely loved my WRT54G series router. I had one years ago | that had its input ethernet port fried during a storm. Luckily I | was running DD-WRT on it and was able to reconfigure one of the | output ethernet ports as the new input so the router lived on. | WarOnPrivacy wrote: | The first dedicated site (I know of) that was distributing | modified 54G firmware was wrt54g.com . | https://web.archive.org/web/20050803021630/http://www.wrt54g... | | Right after that some guy (Thomas?) was tweaking the WRT firmware | and selling it on his own site. He really liked red things. His | whole endeavor kind of annoyed me. | peter_d_sherman wrote: | >"The companies Linksys was competing with were, again, focused | on a market where routers cost nearly as much as a computer | itself. But Victor found the sweet spot: A $199 router that came | with software that was easy to set up and reasonably | understandable for mere mortals." | shmerl wrote: | The latest router in the series is Linksys WRT3200ACM: | https://www.linksys.com/us/p/P-WRT3200ACM/ | | It has decent open source support and even WiFi drivers are open: | https://github.com/kaloz/mwlwifi | | The WiFi firmware though is not, which became a problem when NXP | bought Marvel that made the chips for WRT3200ACM. NXP is | unresponsive and doesn't do anything to update the firmware. | | See: https://community.nxp.com/t5/Wireless- | Connectivity/Drivers-f... | rkagerer wrote: | This may be a dumb question but are there any open-source | routers out there that can manage to do QoS on a gigabit+ WAN | connection (without tanking latency)? | shmerl wrote: | I didn't really play with QoS on it, but it has a dual core | 1.8 GHz CPU, so may be it can handle it. | | In the worst case, you can just make your own custom router | that runs Linux using x86_64 hardware. What's harder to find | is a good MIMO WiFi cards for parallel connections. Qualcomm | supposedly has some with open drivers (recent Atheros - | ath10k, ath11k). ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-01-13 23:00 UTC)