[Cerowrt-devel] archer c7v2 gets third party unupgradable firmware

[Cerowrt-devel] archer c7v2 gets third party unupgradable firmware

[Dave Täht]

A pithy note on
https://wiki.openwrt.org/toh/tp-link/archer-c5-c7-wdr7500 - it contains
a bitter "thank you" to the FCC - you can't upgrade the firmware to a
third party anymore.

I can confirm this - the archer c7v2 I got off of amazon last week has
firmware 3.14.3, and will not take a web upload of openwrt no matter
what I tried. I also failed to get a tftp upload to work (but did not
try hard enough).

So this rules out the netgear wndr 4300, and tp-link archer c7v2 for
future development efforts by the bufferbloat effort.

It's too bad - the cake qdisc is back at a "nearly ready" state and
could use some performance testing and optimization on these lower end
platforms, and I'd like to get make-wifi-fast off the ground.

I guess it would be good to collect a list of those companies that are
engaging in whole router firmware lockdown instead of just lockdown on
the radio, so we can avoid them in the future.

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] archer c7v2 gets third party unupgradable firmware

[Michael Richardson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1029 bytes --]


[so sad]

Dave Täht <dave@taht.net> wrote:
    > It's too bad - the cake qdisc is back at a "nearly ready" state and
    > could use some performance testing and optimization on these lower end
    > platforms, and I'd like to get make-wifi-fast off the ground.

    > I guess it would be good to collect a list of those companies that are
    > engaging in whole router firmware lockdown instead of just lockdown on
    > the radio, so we can avoid them in the future.

And also, someone (not you!) needs to note when these routers have unpatched
CVEs, because I think that the FCC should be held responsible for this.

Non-US companies who experience DDoS intrusions might want to sue the FCC for
damages under Investor-Government provisions of NAFTA/TPP/etc.

--
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        | network architect  [
]     mcr@sandelman.ca  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 481 bytes --]

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] archer c7v2 gets third party unupgradable firmware

[Eric Johansson]

wdr3600 will soon be on the can't upgrade list. The first one I bought I 
made the mistake of following the open WRT instructions to upgrade to 
the current firmware which contained a lockout code. Working with with 
folks on the WRT IRC channel I was able to produce a flash image which 
had the image preamble that made it possible to bypass the lockout image 
and install openwrt.

The preamble was something like 207 bytes long but don't quote me on the 
exact length. I think I still have it somewhere on my Linux partition if 
you are interested.

On 2/14/2016 1:26 PM, Dave Täht wrote:
> A pithy note on
> https://wiki.openwrt.org/toh/tp-link/archer-c5-c7-wdr7500 - it contains
> a bitter "thank you" to the FCC - you can't upgrade the firmware to a
> third party anymore.
>
> I can confirm this - the archer c7v2 I got off of amazon last week has
> firmware 3.14.3, and will not take a web upload of openwrt no matter
> what I tried. I also failed to get a tftp upload to work (but did not
> try hard enough).
>
> So this rules out the netgear wndr 4300, and tp-link archer c7v2 for
> future development efforts by the bufferbloat effort.
>
> It's too bad - the cake qdisc is back at a "nearly ready" state and
> could use some performance testing and optimization on these lower end
> platforms, and I'd like to get make-wifi-fast off the ground.
>
> I guess it would be good to collect a list of those companies that are
> engaging in whole router firmware lockdown instead of just lockdown on
> the radio, so we can avoid them in the future.
> _______________________________________________
> Cerowrt-devel mailing list
> Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] archer c7v2 gets third party unupgradable firmware

[Rich Brown]

Hi Dave,

Since I appear to be one of the owners of the Archer C7 wiki page, can you give me more info about the version number/package labelling/etc. so that we can provide the info for people to identify that it's a bad one? 

Thanks.

Rich


> On Feb 14, 2016, at 1:26 PM, Dave Täht <dave@taht.net> wrote:
> 
> A pithy note on
> https://wiki.openwrt.org/toh/tp-link/archer-c5-c7-wdr7500 - it contains
> a bitter "thank you" to the FCC - you can't upgrade the firmware to a
> third party anymore.
> 
> I can confirm this - the archer c7v2 I got off of amazon last week has
> firmware 3.14.3, and will not take a web upload of openwrt no matter
> what I tried. I also failed to get a tftp upload to work (but did not
> try hard enough).
> 
> So this rules out the netgear wndr 4300, and tp-link archer c7v2 for
> future development efforts by the bufferbloat effort.
> 
> It's too bad - the cake qdisc is back at a "nearly ready" state and
> could use some performance testing and optimization on these lower end
> platforms, and I'd like to get make-wifi-fast off the ground.
> 
> I guess it would be good to collect a list of those companies that are
> engaging in whole router firmware lockdown instead of just lockdown on
> the radio, so we can avoid them in the future.
> _______________________________________________
> Cerowrt-devel mailing list
> Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] archer c7v2 gets third party unupgradable firmware

[dpreed]

I'm giving a talk in a couple months at a very high level, about "what's at stake" as we move into the era of "5G" (for lack of a better word, this is what the media all think is happening, and what has the ear of the FCC).

I'd love to have a list of brands and models that have "gone dark" to security improvements, bug fixing, and innovation - mainly just to point at, implicitly shame the industry and its captured regulators, etc.  This will be a modest part of the talk, which has some other well-docmented bombshells in it (like CG-NAT, for example, and the predictable failure of "white spaces" and the CEO-driven, rather than science-driven PCAST "spectrum sharing" that we are now experiencing).

So if the OpenWRT community can start keeping records of "going dark" dates, ... that would be great.  And if there is a stats-analyst out there, it would be great to have quantitative numbers related to market share of re-flashable routers over time, CVE's related to routers, ... not for this talk, but to be able to tell users what the vendors are (not) doing for them.

I don't have the resources to devote too much time to this, but I do have some visibility, which I can use. And there is a huge problem on the horizon in the "[NonInternet] of Things" that has the same issues only moreso. We need to make WiFi on ESP8266's great in all the dimensions that matter.  Not just fast, but capable of innovation and interoperability at the network layer, and capable of protecting our individual privacy when they surround us and outnumber us.

BTW, I went shopping for a pure home "gateway" box.  What pleased me was this board, because I am sure it has the "oomph" to deal with up to Gigabit packet processing (which is where all the current residential ISPs will shortly be).  It has room for RAM and a good mini-PCIe card, as well as a modest mSATA drive. You can use virtualization to provide isolation between parts.


- Jetway NU93-2930 NUC Form Factor Intel Celeron N2930 SoC Bay Trail 2 Intel LAN, 2 Display, 2 x HDMI, 1 x SATA2 port, full-size mSATA, half-size mini-PCIE, 1 External COM, 3xUSB2, 1xUSB3, Audio, 9V-24V DC-in (size 4" x 4" x 1.5").

- 8 GB SODIMM ($35)
- 32 GB mSATA ($30)
- 12v Wallwart


On Sunday, February 14, 2016 7:46pm, "Rich Brown" <richb.hanover@gmail.com> said:

> Hi Dave,
> 
> Since I appear to be one of the owners of the Archer C7 wiki page, can you give me
> more info about the version number/package labelling/etc. so that we can provide
> the info for people to identify that it's a bad one?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Rich
> 
> 
>> On Feb 14, 2016, at 1:26 PM, Dave Täht <dave@taht.net> wrote:
>>
>> A pithy note on
>> https://wiki.openwrt.org/toh/tp-link/archer-c5-c7-wdr7500 - it contains
>> a bitter "thank you" to the FCC - you can't upgrade the firmware to a
>> third party anymore.
>>
>> I can confirm this - the archer c7v2 I got off of amazon last week has
>> firmware 3.14.3, and will not take a web upload of openwrt no matter
>> what I tried. I also failed to get a tftp upload to work (but did not
>> try hard enough).
>>
>> So this rules out the netgear wndr 4300, and tp-link archer c7v2 for
>> future development efforts by the bufferbloat effort.
>>
>> It's too bad - the cake qdisc is back at a "nearly ready" state and
>> could use some performance testing and optimization on these lower end
>> platforms, and I'd like to get make-wifi-fast off the ground.
>>
>> I guess it would be good to collect a list of those companies that are
>> engaging in whole router firmware lockdown instead of just lockdown on
>> the radio, so we can avoid them in the future.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Cerowrt-devel mailing list
>> Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net
>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Cerowrt-devel mailing list
> Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel
>

[Cerowrt-devel] nuc stuff

[Dave Täht]

On 2/15/16 8:11 AM, dpreed@reed.com wrote:

> BTW, I went shopping for a pure home "gateway" box.  What pleased me was this board, because I am sure it has the "oomph" to deal with up to Gigabit packet processing (which is where all the current residential ISPs will shortly be).  It has room for RAM and a good mini-PCIe card, as well as a modest mSATA drive. You can use virtualization to provide isolation between parts.
> 
> 
> - Jetway NU93-2930 NUC Form Factor Intel Celeron N2930 SoC Bay Trail 2 Intel LAN, 2 Display, 2 x HDMI, 1 x SATA2 port, full-size mSATA, half-size mini-PCIE, 1 External COM, 3xUSB2, 1xUSB3, Audio, 9V-24V DC-in (size 4" x 4" x 1.5").
> 
> - 8 GB SODIMM ($35)
> - 32 GB mSATA ($30)
> - 12v Wallwart


Oh, goodie. I've been a very happy user of the nuc based products for
quite some time now (it is generally my main desktop box and I use two
as load generators). The linux support for the graphics chipset,
ethernet drivers, etc, is excellent, the fan, quiet, the speed adaquate
for everything except big compiles (where I am spoilt by having a big
box in the cloud). I would hope it is a good box for bsd/pfsense also.

It is a really good box for server/IoT controller/Torrent/development
duties as well, and having one as my main router to the internet has
always been an option (I do not mind having wifi on a separate box anymore)

Finding one with dual ethernet ports was always a problem.

Problems are:

0) Internal wifi antennas may suck. Still the basic case and device are
229 on amazon + memory.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00SHYW6US/ref=ox_sc_act_title_1?ie=UTF8&psc=1&smid=AEELF2HAVZFED

Ordered one with the tall case. Thx!

I am very tired of not having a full OS on the firewall/gateway and will
give this a shot. I am pretty sure that things like openwrt derived
odhcp6 and so on will be of help....

1) The msata slot is full length. The wifi slot is half length which
restricts you to using half length cards. Only 2x2 802.11n is achievable
in that form factor.

Since I wanted 3x3 or 802.11ac support...

I experimented with using a usb3 stick as a hard disk, roached two (and
it was slow) so I gave up on that and went with an external usb3 hard
disk - and recently found a usb3 to msata adaptor which is working
pretty well.

Then they came up with a taller case so you can use a regular sata disk.
I have kept hoping to find something I could mirror with, like this:

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00AYI276I?psc=1
or this
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00ITJ7WDC/ref=pd_luc_rh_mrairec_01_04_t_img_lh?ie=UTF8&psc=1

2) Although this looks to be less powerful than other (i3, i5) nucs I've
had, the default ethernet driver does do TSO offloads. You *can* turn
them off and I think 1GigE forwarding rates are possible - otherwise,
cake would be needed. Will find out tomorrow.

I have totally lost track of the differentiation between atom and
celeron - I was using the rangeley platform elsewhere...

3) The edgerouter X provides about 250mbit dual ports for 50 bucks.
The linksys ac1200 can do gigE with cake, but it's still a bit buggy.

...

Other items maybe worth playing with on other hardware were things like

http://www.amazon.com/Syba-Port-mSATA-Components-SD-PEX40079/dp/B00KKO6N98/ref=sr_1_3?s=pc&ie=UTF8&qid=1455560175&sr=1-3&keywords=msata+raid

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] nuc stuff

[Outback Dingo]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3885 bytes --]

On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 7:38 PM, Dave Täht <dave@taht.net> wrote:

>
>
> On 2/15/16 8:11 AM, dpreed@reed.com wrote:
>
> > BTW, I went shopping for a pure home "gateway" box.  What pleased me was
> this board, because I am sure it has the "oomph" to deal with up to Gigabit
> packet processing (which is where all the current residential ISPs will
> shortly be).  It has room for RAM and a good mini-PCIe card, as well as a
> modest mSATA drive. You can use virtualization to provide isolation between
> parts.
> >
> >
> > - Jetway NU93-2930 NUC Form Factor Intel Celeron N2930 SoC Bay Trail 2
> Intel LAN, 2 Display, 2 x HDMI, 1 x SATA2 port, full-size mSATA, half-size
> mini-PCIE, 1 External COM, 3xUSB2, 1xUSB3, Audio, 9V-24V DC-in (size 4" x
> 4" x 1.5").
> >
> > - 8 GB SODIMM ($35)
> > - 32 GB mSATA ($30)
> > - 12v Wallwart
>
>
> Oh, goodie. I've been a very happy user of the nuc based products for
> quite some time now (it is generally my main desktop box and I use two
> as load generators). The linux support for the graphics chipset,
> ethernet drivers, etc, is excellent, the fan, quiet, the speed adaquate
> for everything except big compiles (where I am spoilt by having a big
> box in the cloud). I would hope it is a good box for bsd/pfsense also.
>
> It is a really good box for server/IoT controller/Torrent/development
> duties as well, and having one as my main router to the internet has
> always been an option (I do not mind having wifi on a separate box anymore)
>
> Finding one with dual ethernet ports was always a problem.
>
> Problems are:
>
> 0) Internal wifi antennas may suck. Still the basic case and device are
> 229 on amazon + memory.
>
>
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00SHYW6US/ref=ox_sc_act_title_1?ie=UTF8&psc=1&smid=AEELF2HAVZFED
>
> Ordered one with the tall case. Thx!
>
> I am very tired of not having a full OS on the firewall/gateway and will
> give this a shot. I am pretty sure that things like openwrt derived
> odhcp6 and so on will be of help....
>
> 1) The msata slot is full length. The wifi slot is half length which
> restricts you to using half length cards. Only 2x2 802.11n is achievable
> in that form factor.
>
> Since I wanted 3x3 or 802.11ac support...
>
> I experimented with using a usb3 stick as a hard disk, roached two (and
> it was slow) so I gave up on that and went with an external usb3 hard
> disk - and recently found a usb3 to msata adaptor which is working
> pretty well.
>
> Then they came up with a taller case so you can use a regular sata disk.
> I have kept hoping to find something I could mirror with, like this:
>
> http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00AYI276I?psc=1
> or this
>
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00ITJ7WDC/ref=pd_luc_rh_mrairec_01_04_t_img_lh?ie=UTF8&psc=1
>
> 2) Although this looks to be less powerful than other (i3, i5) nucs I've
> had, the default ethernet driver does do TSO offloads. You *can* turn
> them off and I think 1GigE forwarding rates are possible - otherwise,
> cake would be needed. Will find out tomorrow.
>
> I have totally lost track of the differentiation between atom and
> celeron - I was using the rangeley platform elsewhere...
>
> 3) The edgerouter X provides about 250mbit dual ports for 50 bucks.
> The linksys ac1200 can do gigE with cake, but it's still a bit buggy.
>
> ...
>
> Other items maybe worth playing with on other hardware were things like
>
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Syba-Port-mSATA-Components-SD-PEX40079/dp/B00KKO6N98/ref=sr_1_3?s=pc&ie=UTF8&qid=1455560175&sr=1-3&keywords=msata+raid
>
>
Gigabyte and ASUS also have some decent NUCs already out or coming soon!



>
> _______________________________________________
> Cerowrt-devel mailing list
> Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5372 bytes --]

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] nuc stuff

[Valent Turkovic]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 597 bytes --]

If you are looking for absolutely most powerful device but in smaller form
factor than NUC then check out PC Engines APU.1D, this amazing board is x86
so it blows all other non-x86 devices away... it should be similar or more
powerful that Mikrotik CCR Cloud Routers.

Software wise it can run FreeBSD, OpenWrt or Mikrotik OS.

[1]
http://www.pluscom.pl/en/pc-engines-apu-1d-3xgigabit-lan-2gb-ram-t40e-cpu-board-p2412.html
- http://www.pcengines.ch/apu1d.htm
[2] https://schemen.me/routeros-on-apu/
- https://wiki.openwrt.org/toh/pcengines/apu
- https://forum.openwrt.org/viewtopic.php?pid=316913

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1426 bytes --]

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] nuc stuff

[Dave Taht]

The problem I had had with this nuc is that it can't drive any of my 3
HDMI monitors properly. Still have that problem... and darn it, all I
need the thing to do is install *something*... and then I'll never use
the screen again.

On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 6:01 PM, Valent Turkovic
<valent@otvorenamreza.org> wrote:
> If you are looking for absolutely most powerful device but in smaller form
> factor than NUC then check out PC Engines APU.1D, this amazing board is x86
> so it blows all other non-x86 devices away...

In general I am looking for a range of devices from low end to high.
This box does not count as
"high" (10GigE), but it looks equivalent to the turris omnia in most
respects. I like that it is x86 (for dev purposes).

> it should be similar or more
> powerful that Mikrotik CCR Cloud Routers.
>
> Software wise it can run FreeBSD, OpenWrt or Mikrotik OS.
>
> [1]
> http://www.pluscom.pl/en/pc-engines-apu-1d-3xgigabit-lan-2gb-ram-t40e-cpu-board-p2412.html
> - http://www.pcengines.ch/apu1d.htm
> [2] https://schemen.me/routeros-on-apu/
> - https://wiki.openwrt.org/toh/pcengines/apu
> - https://forum.openwrt.org/viewtopic.php?pid=316913

When I had last looked at this board there was no openwrt support, and
no BQL support for the onboard ethernet.

My experience with running bigger OSes on x86 off of a USB stick has
been dismal (all praise openwrt for nearly never writing to flash)

It looks like all that has improved in the past year or so. It runs
coreboot, which makes me happy, and having two easy to access mini-pci
slots would be helpful right now.  I ordered one.

Elsewhere I'd had a mostly dismal experience with current hackerboards
(c1,c2,rpi3), ipv6, and wifi usb sticks. The nice thing about that is
I just filed bugs on all of those issues and perhaps someone else will
fix 'em.

https://github.com/hardkernel/linux/issues/177 - fixed upstream already

https://github.com/raspberrypi/linux/issues/1370 - ignored

https://github.com/raspberrypi/linux/issues/1371 - pretty nasty kernel
bug in the rpi3's ipv6 stack (I think it's the ethernet driver, the
rpi2 does not have this problem)

...

I have a bunch of usb wifi sticks that all didn't work right for
various reasons. So moving to a mini-pcie set of boxes will help.

>
> _______________________________________________
> Cerowrt-devel mailing list
> Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel
>

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] nuc stuff

[Outback Dingo]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 798 bytes --]

sorry guys, miss the reply all

http://www.jetwaycomputer.com/NF592.html

available soon


On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 3:01 AM, Valent Turkovic <valent@otvorenamreza.org>
wrote:

> If you are looking for absolutely most powerful device but in smaller form
> factor than NUC then check out PC Engines APU.1D, this amazing board is x86
> so it blows all other non-x86 devices away... it should be similar or more
> powerful that Mikrotik CCR Cloud Routers.
>
> Software wise it can run FreeBSD, OpenWrt or Mikrotik OS.
>
> [1]
> http://www.pluscom.pl/en/pc-engines-apu-1d-3xgigabit-lan-2gb-ram-t40e-cpu-board-p2412.html
> - http://www.pcengines.ch/apu1d.htm
> [2] https://schemen.me/routeros-on-apu/
> - https://wiki.openwrt.org/toh/pcengines/apu
> - https://forum.openwrt.org/viewtopic.php?pid=316913
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2096 bytes --]

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] nuc stuff

[David Lang]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/Plain, Size: 901 bytes --]

what sort of expected price?

On Mon, 28 Mar 2016, Outback Dingo wrote:

> sorry guys, miss the reply all
>
> http://www.jetwaycomputer.com/NF592.html
>
> available soon
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 3:01 AM, Valent Turkovic <valent@otvorenamreza.org>
> wrote:
>
>> If you are looking for absolutely most powerful device but in smaller form
>> factor than NUC then check out PC Engines APU.1D, this amazing board is x86
>> so it blows all other non-x86 devices away... it should be similar or more
>> powerful that Mikrotik CCR Cloud Routers.
>>
>> Software wise it can run FreeBSD, OpenWrt or Mikrotik OS.
>>
>> [1]
>> http://www.pluscom.pl/en/pc-engines-apu-1d-3xgigabit-lan-2gb-ram-t40e-cpu-board-p2412.html
>> - http://www.pcengines.ch/apu1d.htm
>> [2] https://schemen.me/routeros-on-apu/
>> - https://wiki.openwrt.org/toh/pcengines/apu
>> - https://forum.openwrt.org/viewtopic.php?pid=316913
>>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: TEXT/PLAIN, Size: 164 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Cerowrt-devel mailing list
Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] nuc stuff

[Outback Dingo]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1275 bytes --]

$255.00 and do not have a case for it, im currently working on a prototype
case

On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 3:51 AM, David Lang <david@lang.hm> wrote:

> what sort of expected price?
>
>
> On Mon, 28 Mar 2016, Outback Dingo wrote:
>
> sorry guys, miss the reply all
>>
>> http://www.jetwaycomputer.com/NF592.html
>>
>> available soon
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 3:01 AM, Valent Turkovic <
>> valent@otvorenamreza.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> If you are looking for absolutely most powerful device but in smaller form
>>> factor than NUC then check out PC Engines APU.1D, this amazing board is
>>> x86
>>> so it blows all other non-x86 devices away... it should be similar or
>>> more
>>> powerful that Mikrotik CCR Cloud Routers.
>>>
>>> Software wise it can run FreeBSD, OpenWrt or Mikrotik OS.
>>>
>>> [1]
>>>
>>> http://www.pluscom.pl/en/pc-engines-apu-1d-3xgigabit-lan-2gb-ram-t40e-cpu-board-p2412.html
>>> - http://www.pcengines.ch/apu1d.htm
>>> [2] https://schemen.me/routeros-on-apu/
>>> - https://wiki.openwrt.org/toh/pcengines/apu
>>> - https://forum.openwrt.org/viewtopic.php?pid=316913
>>>
>>>
> _______________________________________________
> Cerowrt-devel mailing list
> Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2708 bytes --]

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] nuc stuff

[Outback Dingo]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1507 bytes --]

this is also becoming available soon

https://www.solid-run.com/marvell-armada-family/clearfog/

On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 3:54 AM, Outback Dingo <outbackdingo@gmail.com>
wrote:

> $255.00 and do not have a case for it, im currently working on a prototype
> case
>
> On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 3:51 AM, David Lang <david@lang.hm> wrote:
>
>> what sort of expected price?
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 28 Mar 2016, Outback Dingo wrote:
>>
>> sorry guys, miss the reply all
>>>
>>> http://www.jetwaycomputer.com/NF592.html
>>>
>>> available soon
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 3:01 AM, Valent Turkovic <
>>> valent@otvorenamreza.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> If you are looking for absolutely most powerful device but in smaller
>>>> form
>>>> factor than NUC then check out PC Engines APU.1D, this amazing board is
>>>> x86
>>>> so it blows all other non-x86 devices away... it should be similar or
>>>> more
>>>> powerful that Mikrotik CCR Cloud Routers.
>>>>
>>>> Software wise it can run FreeBSD, OpenWrt or Mikrotik OS.
>>>>
>>>> [1]
>>>>
>>>> http://www.pluscom.pl/en/pc-engines-apu-1d-3xgigabit-lan-2gb-ram-t40e-cpu-board-p2412.html
>>>> - http://www.pcengines.ch/apu1d.htm
>>>> [2] https://schemen.me/routeros-on-apu/
>>>> - https://wiki.openwrt.org/toh/pcengines/apu
>>>> - https://forum.openwrt.org/viewtopic.php?pid=316913
>>>>
>>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Cerowrt-devel mailing list
>> Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net
>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel
>>
>>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3360 bytes --]

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] archer c7v2 gets third party unupgradable firmware

[Matt Taggart]

dpreed@reed.com writes:

> I'm giving a talk in a couple months at a very high level, about "what's
> at stake" as we move into the era of "5G" (for lack of a better word,
> this is what the media all think is happening, and what has the ear of
> the FCC).
>
> I'd love to have a list of brands and models that have "gone dark" to
> security improvements, bug fixing, and innovation - mainly just to
> point at, implicitly shame the industry and its captured regulators,
> etc.  This will be a modest part of the talk, which has some other
> well-docmented bombshells in it (like CG-NAT, for example, and the
> predictable failure of "white spaces" and the CEO-driven, rather than
> science-driven PCAST "spectrum sharing" that we are now experiencing).

In addition to the "gone dark" concerns you mention, I think there are a 
couple larger issues in the "what's at stake" discussion that you might 
want to think about and include in your talk:

1) Just as we've seen cell phones all but replace "land lines"; 
smartphones, phablets, and tablets replace laptops and desktops; I think we 
are starting and will continue to see cell data replace home broadband. For 
the non-geek market, 4g/5g is more than fast enough (faster than a lot of 
DSL), already built-in and working, doesn't require setting up additional 
equipment(that sucks by default unless you are a geek that can fix it), 
already paid for, etc.

For the average consumer, it's increasingly making more financial sense to 
just
buy a capable phone/tablet with good data plan rather than deal with 
broadband, a laptop, etc. Most of my relatives seem to be going this route.

This will result in further centralization of control of the internet. 
We're starting to see carriers in North America offering non-net-neural 
features like free data to certain sites (youtube, pandora, etc) but data 
caps for everything else.

Many consumers will still be paying for Cable TV and have a need for their 
SmartTVs, gaming consoles, and IoT crap to connect to the internet. So the 
provided proprietary cable/DSL/fiber gateway will still have (crappy) 
wireless. And maybe they use that wireless on their phone/phablet/tablet, 
but the cell data will probably replace that soon. But they will no longer 
have a traditional "wifi router" as we have in the past. So it's not just 
_some_ models going dark, but _most_ will and the wifi router will become a 
geek niche market? Maybe the google and amazon premium wireless voice 
activated things will take over part of that niche?

But most consumers may be giving up control of the network in their own 
house and won't be able to run something that properly solves 
bufferbloat/bad wifi/security problems/etc

Maybe the OpenHardware SBC on Kickstarter world will be what geeks turn to 
to replace the commodity wifi router for running openwrt etc? Or the nuc 
offerings?
But mainstream people are unlikely to do so.

2) Unrelated to wifi/routing, but it's getting increasingly difficult to 
run your own internet services. Running an SMTP server successfully now 
requires many hours a month of staying up on spamfighting tech, dealing 
with spammer attacks/phishing/poisoning/etc. Same with a web CMS.


I think the freedombox and openwireless (cerowrt inspired) folks were 
insightful in realizing these problems were coming. But I don't know if 
we're any closer to solving them.

dpreed,
Who is your audience for this talk and what do you hope to achieve with 
your talk?

-- 
Matt Taggart
matt@lackof.org