Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.networking > #944 > unrolled thread

which midpriced routers accept opensource OS

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.networking

Contents

  which midpriced routers accept opensource OS Harry Putnam <reader@newsguy.com> - 2012-01-06 13:10 -0500
    Re: which midpriced routers accept opensource OS Aragorn <stryder@telenet.be.invalid> - 2012-01-06 20:23 +0100
      Re: which midpriced routers accept opensource OS Harry Putnam <reader@newsguy.com> - 2012-01-06 15:04 -0500
        Re: which midpriced routers accept opensource OS Aragorn <stryder@telenet.be.invalid> - 2012-01-06 23:13 +0100
          Re: which midpriced routers accept opensource OS David Brown <david.brown@removethis.hesbynett.no> - 2012-01-07 14:01 +0100
          Re: which midpriced routers accept opensource OS Ian Zimmerman <itz@buug.org> - 2012-01-07 10:17 -0800
        Re: which midpriced routers accept opensource OS Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2012-01-07 10:39 +0100
          Re: which midpriced routers accept opensource OS Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2012-01-07 10:40 +0100
    Re: which midpriced routers accept opensource OS Damien Wyart <damien.wyart@free.fr> - 2012-01-08 09:43 +0100
      Re: which midpriced routers accept opensource OS Harry Putnam <reader@newsguy.com> - 2012-01-09 10:47 -0500
        Re: which midpriced routers accept opensource OS Damien Wyart <damien.wyart@free.fr> - 2012-01-09 17:20 +0100
          Re: which midpriced routers accept opensource OS Damien Wyart <damien.wyart@free.fr> - 2012-01-09 17:21 +0100
          Re: which midpriced routers accept opensource OS Damien Wyart <damien.wyart@free.fr> - 2012-01-10 21:35 +0100
            Re: which midpriced routers accept opensource OS Harry Putnam <reader@newsguy.com> - 2012-01-11 08:19 -0500
          Re: which midpriced routers accept opensource OS Harry Putnam <reader@newsguy.com> - 2012-01-11 08:24 -0500
            Re: which midpriced routers accept opensource OS Damien Wyart <damien.wyart@free.fr> - 2012-01-11 15:23 +0100
            Re: which midpriced routers accept opensource OS Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2012-01-11 16:30 -0500
              Re: which midpriced routers accept opensource OS Damien Wyart <damien.wyart@free.fr> - 2012-01-11 23:14 +0100
      Re: which midpriced routers accept opensource OS Harry Putnam <reader@newsguy.com> - 2012-01-12 10:28 -0500

#944 — which midpriced routers accept opensource OS

I want a router that I can tinker with more than most of the lower end
ones available.

Seems that of the several I have, none accept an opensource OS.

So, I'd like to see posted a list of low to mid end routers out there
that are known to accept opensource alternative OS.

What I now own... just in case I've not done my homework as well as I
think

  Cisco RVS4000 4-port Gigabit Security Router
  linksys E2500
  linksys WRT120n
  Netgear FVS-318

But even if one or more of these will take Alternate OS, still a nifty
list would be handy.

If any posters want to respond mentioning the names of those they know
do accept alternative OS, I will compile the list and post it.

I realize one can lookup on opensource router OS sites, if a specific
router is supported... but this list will take things the other way
round and should be quite handy.

On those sites you can search a specific router... so you need the
router names in advance.

I'm looking to create a list that shows router names known to work
so you may at a glance pick a router known to work. 

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#946

On Friday 06 January 2012 19:10, Harry Putnam conveyed the following to 
comp.os.linux.networking...

> I want a router that I can tinker with more than most of the lower end
> ones available.
> 
> Seems that of the several I have, none accept an opensource OS.
> 
> So, I'd like to see posted a list of low to mid end routers out there
> that are known to accept opensource alternative OS.
> 
> What I now own... just in case I've not done my homework as well as I
> think
> 
>   Cisco RVS4000 4-port Gigabit Security Router
>   linksys E2500
>   linksys WRT120n
>   Netgear FVS-318
> 
> But even if one or more of these will take Alternate OS, still a nifty
> list would be handy.
> 
> If any posters want to respond mentioning the names of those they know
> do accept alternative OS, I will compile the list and post it.

Both the Linksys WRT54G and WRT54GL accept OpenWRT or ddWRT firmware.  
The WRT54GL does itself also run GNU/Linux under the hood.

-- 
= Aragorn =
(registered GNU/Linux user #223157)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#947

Aragorn <stryder@telenet.be.invalid> writes:

>> If any posters want to respond mentioning the names of those they know
>> do accept alternative OS, I will compile the list and post it.
>
> Both the Linksys WRT54G and WRT54GL accept OpenWRT or ddWRT firmware.  
> The WRT54GL does itself also run GNU/Linux under the hood.

Great, thanks for the good input.

Its not so easy to google the difference between them, even on linksys
and cisco pages the actual specs are hard to find... they want to show
only an overview.

Do you know what the difference is?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#948

On Friday 06 January 2012 21:04, Harry Putnam conveyed the following to 
comp.os.linux.networking...

> Aragorn <stryder@telenet.be.invalid> writes:
> 
>> [Harry Putnam wrote:]
>>
>>> If any posters want to respond mentioning the names of those they
>>> know do accept alternative OS, I will compile the list and post it.
>>
>> Both the Linksys WRT54G and WRT54GL accept OpenWRT or ddWRT firmware.
>> The WRT54GL does itself also run GNU/Linux under the hood.
> 
> Great, thanks for the good input.
> 
> Its not so easy to google the difference between them, even on linksys
> and cisco pages the actual specs are hard to find... they want to show
> only an overview.
> 
> Do you know what the difference is?

Not at the hardware level, no, but the WRT54G is an older model with 
different firmware, while the WRT54GL is newer and runs GNU/Linux.  It 
even says so on the box.

I know that both can be flashed with said open firmware, because my ex-
colleague has the older one and has successfully put OpenWRT on it, and 
I myself have the GL model, and I know people who've got the same model 
and have put DD-WRT or OpenWRT on it.

-- 
= Aragorn =
(registered GNU/Linux user #223157)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#951

On 06/01/12 23:13, Aragorn wrote:
> On Friday 06 January 2012 21:04, Harry Putnam conveyed the following to
> comp.os.linux.networking...
>
>> Aragorn<stryder@telenet.be.invalid>  writes:
>>
>>> [Harry Putnam wrote:]
>>>
>>>> If any posters want to respond mentioning the names of those they
>>>> know do accept alternative OS, I will compile the list and post it.
>>>
>>> Both the Linksys WRT54G and WRT54GL accept OpenWRT or ddWRT firmware.
>>> The WRT54GL does itself also run GNU/Linux under the hood.
>>
>> Great, thanks for the good input.
>>
>> Its not so easy to google the difference between them, even on linksys
>> and cisco pages the actual specs are hard to find... they want to show
>> only an overview.
>>
>> Do you know what the difference is?
>
> Not at the hardware level, no, but the WRT54G is an older model with
> different firmware, while the WRT54GL is newer and runs GNU/Linux.  It
> even says so on the box.
>
> I know that both can be flashed with said open firmware, because my ex-
> colleague has the older one and has successfully put OpenWRT on it, and
> I myself have the GL model, and I know people who've got the same model
> and have put DD-WRT or OpenWRT on it.
>

The WRT54GL was one of the first routers that OpenWRT used.  If I've got 
my history right, the OpenWRT project started after someone forced 
LinkSys to release the source code for their Linux-based WRT54GL.  At 
first it was a battle, as is often the case - then LinkSys began to see 
the point in the idea and released more than they had to, and helped and 
sponsored OpenWRT.

I have put OpenWRT onto perhaps a dozen WRT54GL's.  It's not the most 
powerful router available, and certainly not in value for money - it's a 
fair number of years old.  But it works fine, and it is very convenient 
to use the same model - having set up one, and backed up the images, it 
is a quick job to set up new ones.  When doing this at work, the time 
saved trumps the cost of the device.

I have also used OpenWRT on a couple of other models, but I can't 
remember what types.  One was from Asus.  The OpenWRT website keeps a 
list of supported models.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#955

Aragorn> I know that both can be flashed with said open firmware,
Aragorn> because my ex- colleague has the older one and has successfully
Aragorn> put OpenWRT on it, and I myself have the GL model, and I know
Aragorn> people who've got the same model and have put DD-WRT or OpenWRT
Aragorn> on it.

As my 2 cents, here we have a WRT54GL running Tomato.

-- 
Ian Zimmerman
gpg public key: 1024D/C6FF61AD
fingerprint: 66DC D68F 5C1B 4D71 2EE5  BD03 8A00 786C C6FF 61AD
Rule 420: All persons more than eight miles high to leave the court.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#949

Hello,

Harry Putnam a écrit :
> Aragorn <stryder@telenet.be.invalid> writes:
> 
>> Both the Linksys WRT54G and WRT54GL accept OpenWRT or ddWRT firmware.  
>> The WRT54GL does itself also run GNU/Linux under the hood.
> 
> Do you know what the difference is?

Older versions of WRT54G up to 4.0 had 16 MiB RAM and 4 MiB flash. Later
versions have only 8 MB RAM and 2 MB flash, which makes them unusable
with many alternate firmwares. WRT54GL has 16 MiB flash and 4 MiB RAM
and is basically the same as WRT54G version 4.0.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linksys_WRT54G_series#Hardware_versions_affect_firmware_compatibility

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#950

Pascal Hambourg a écrit :
> WRT54GL has 16 MiB flash and 4 MiB RAM

Oops, it's 16 MiB RAM and 4 MiB flash.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#952

Hi,

* Harry Putnam <reader@newsguy.com> in comp.os.linux.networking:
> If any posters want to respond mentioning the names of those they know
> do accept alternative OS, I will compile the list and post it.

> I realize one can lookup on opensource router OS sites, if a specific
> router is supported... but this list will take things the other way
> round and should be quite handy.

Here is some suggested reading:

http://wiki.openwrt.org/toh/buyerguide

https://forum.openwrt.org/viewtopic.php?id=28539
https://forum.openwrt.org/viewtopic.php?id=32227
https://forum.openwrt.org/viewtopic.php?id=30509
http://wiki.openwrt.org/toh/tp-link/tl-wr1043nd
http://blog.philippklaus.de/2011/04/openwrt-on-a-tp-link-tl-wr1043nd-gigabit-router/

My personal choice has been the WR1043ND and I'm really happy with
OpenWRT 10.03.1 running on it.

Of course, you can also search for similar information on the DDWRT and
Tomato websites, but I had the impression they support less routers and
do not have a very active community.

-- 
DW

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#957

Damien Wyart <damien.wyart@free.fr> writes:

[...]

> Here is some suggested reading:
>
> http://wiki.openwrt.org/toh/buyerguide
>
> https://forum.openwrt.org/viewtopic.php?id=28539
> https://forum.openwrt.org/viewtopic.php?id=32227
> https://forum.openwrt.org/viewtopic.php?id=30509
> http://wiki.openwrt.org/toh/tp-link/tl-wr1043nd
> http://blog.philippklaus.de/2011/04/openwrt-on-a-tp-link-tl-wr1043nd-gigabit-router/
>
> My personal choice has been the WR1043ND and I'm really happy with
> OpenWRT 10.03.1 running on it.

I could not get most of those pages to resolve from my desktop.
None of the thread messages.

But starting with this one:
   http://wiki.openwrt.org/toh/tp-link/tl-wr1043nd

After digging around those pages a bit, it begins to appear that there
is a whole lot nicky nacky bull pucky to keep up with.  They make it
sound rather complex and trouble prone.

About a quarter of the way down at the large Exclamation point they
talk about having to dick around editing flash images with dd and
such, it all sounds pretty sorry.

When you installed the openwrt onto the router was it really any more
than a regular flashing type operation?

Do you know of any screen shots or the like that show openwrt in use
on one of these?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#958

* Harry Putnam <reader@newsguy.com> in comp.os.linux.networking:
> I could not get most of those pages to resolve from my desktop. None
> of the thread messages.

They seem to have some downtime these days. The links you could not
follow are interesting because they deal with your initial question
about choosing the router itself. So I suggest you retry in a day or two
if you are not in a hurry.

The WRT54* series which was the "standard" answer some days ago might
not be the best choice these days, even if it is good in itself.

> After digging around those pages a bit, it begins to appear that there
> is a whole lot nicky nacky bull pucky to keep up with. They make it
> sound rather complex and trouble prone.

This is mainly related to the wiki nature of the documentation: people
who had very specific (and rare) problems will write them down to help
others; people getting things working directly will just enjoy... The
warnings on the page are related to very specific problems which do not
affect normal users.

> About a quarter of the way down at the large Exclamation point they
> talk about having to dick around editing flash images with dd and
> such, it all sounds pretty sorry. When you installed the openwrt onto
> the router was it really any more than a regular flashing type
> operation?

Yes, the flashing was straightforward from the native GUI of the router.
Everything worked out of the box in the OpenWRT GUI (named LuCI).

The big warning are related to two things:
- some versions of the native firmware could not be flashed directly in
  case one wants to remove OpenWRT; this is not the case with the latest
  firmware from TP-Link.
- it is not possible to modify the Uboot bootloader, or reflash it in
  case it has been corrupted, but this is very advanced hacking...

> Do you know of any screen shots or the like that show openwrt in use
> on one of these?

You can find some recent screenshots here (based on the trunk version of
OpenWRT, but the stable version is similar) :
http://ip6.ro/firmware/tp-link/wr1043nd/screenshots/

If you want to fine tune things (IPv6 for example), you will need to
connect through ssh and modify a few files, but this is quite well
documented.

In fact my main goal when answering was to highlight that the classical
WRT54* models are showing their age, and turning to more recent routers
can be interesting: the hardware will be more powerful and (in France
at least) the price will be lower. And models like the 1043ND are mature
enough to be very well supported by OpenWRT. I think they are in the top
5 of the most popular models among OpenWRT users.

That being said, I mainly chose OpenWRT for its flexibility and full
support of IPv6 but for standard features, the native firmware is quite
good...

-- 
DW

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#959

> The WRT54* series which was the "standard" answer some days ago might
> not be the best choice these days, even if it is good in itself.

I wanted to write "years" ago, sorry for the typo.

-- 
DW

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#960

> They seem to have some downtime these days. The links you could not
> follow are interesting because they deal with your initial question
> about choosing the router itself. So I suggest you retry in a day or
> two if you are not in a hurry.

The OpenWRT sites seem to be back right now, I hope this will be stable
again so the links given initially can be browsed through.


Best,
-- 
DW

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#961

Damien Wyart <damien.wyart@free.fr> writes:

>> They seem to have some downtime these days. The links you could not
>> follow are interesting because they deal with your initial question
>> about choosing the router itself. So I suggest you retry in a day or
>> two if you are not in a hurry.
>
> The OpenWRT sites seem to be back right now, I hope this will be stable
> again so the links given initially can be browsed through.

I still cannot get to them, but I have noticed my connection is not
that wonderful in other places too, so it may not be a general thing.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#962

Damien Wyart <damien.wyart@free.fr> writes:

> This is mainly related to the wiki nature of the documentation: people
> who had very specific (and rare) problems will write them down to help
> others; people getting things working directly will just enjoy... The
> warnings on the page are related to very specific problems which do not
> affect normal users.

Point taken, thanks for making that clear and reporting your
experiences flashing and so forth.

I'm not really sure what to expect with the kind of setup you
describe.

Does one run their own iptables setup or is the openwrt a sort of
frontend to that?

I've not really found a comprehensive overview of what openwrt is
supposed to do that leaves one feeling they know what the software
does. 

I currently cannot resolve the home page to reread the overview but I
don't recall feeling very satisfied with the overview having explained
what it's was all about.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#963

* Harry Putnam <reader@newsguy.com> in comp.os.linux.networking:
> Does one run their own iptables setup or is the openwrt a sort of
> frontend to that?

There is a default iptables setup when you install OpenWRT, and it just
works for standard use of a home router. Manual tuning is only for
special needs like IPv6 or defining multiple zones on your network, or
doing port forwarding.

> I've not really found a comprehensive overview of what openwrt is
> supposed to do that leaves one feeling they know what the software
> does.

OpenWRT is a linux distribution targeted at home wifi routers, coming
with a GUI named Luci and a reasonable set of default settings.

-- 
DW

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#964

> I've not really found a comprehensive overview of what openwrt is
> supposed to do that leaves one feeling they know what the
> software does.

FWIW, I recommend OpenWRT if you care about your freedom.
Most alternatives seem to care less about freedom (are more willing to
include proprietary bits) and don't make tinkering as easy.

OpenWRT is not perfect by a long stretch (their story for upgrading the
firmware without having to redo the config is fairly weak), but it
really gives you a lot of flexibility (by being able to very easily (tho
it takes significant CPU time and disk space) build a customized
firmware) while providing a fairly clean and simple default with a GUI
that's good enough to cover the typical needs.  So you can start as
a "dumb user" which just downloads a prebuilt firmware, then later on
decide to add some prebuilt packages from some archive somewhere, and
yet later on build your own firmwares and packages.  The steps between
these are surprisingly small.


        Stefan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#965

* Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> in comp.os.linux.networking:
> OpenWRT is not perfect by a long stretch (their story for upgrading
> the firmware without having to redo the config is fairly weak), [...]

With recent versions, sysupgrade works very well: the only required
additional step is reinstalling the packages and enabling previously
enabled services. I've tested it a few times and it worked well.

http://wiki.openwrt.org/doc/howto/generic.sysupgrade

-- 
DW

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#966

Damien Wyart <damien.wyart@free.fr> writes:

> Here is some suggested reading:
>
> http://wiki.openwrt.org/toh/buyerguide

That guide appears singularly useless.  There is no guide involved.  I
wonder why it is called a buyers guide.  And am startled to see
posters in the thread rave about it.

What am I missing there?

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.networking

csiph-web