Re: [Cerowrt-devel] Fwd: wndr3800 replacement

[Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com>]

On Sun, Mar 30, 2014 at 3:03 PM, Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca> wrote:
>
> Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> wrote:
>     >> Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> wrote: >> that is just fine.  I don't
>     >> expect 24-ports of GbE.  >> (I was expecting that cisco switch to do
>     >> that... sadly no lost packets >> on a $100 unmanaged FE switch...)
>     >>
>     >> > I started looking at the edgerouter LTE and related boxes again.  >
>     >> Does anyone else have one?
>     >>
>     >> I have ordered the 5-port POE one.
>
>     > Does that support gigabit POE?
>
> Unclear...  web site says:
>             10/100/1000 Ethernet ports that support 24V or 48V PoE output
>             with software-selectable voltage control*
>
>     >> My understanding is that it runs Vyatta. I would suspect that given
>     >> that the
>
>     > It is running an older version of vyatta, yes.
>
> okay.
>
>     >> edgerouter is MIPS, and has "special hardware", that VyOS might not
>     >> have the
>
>     > Not sure what the offloads buy you, except added latency. They are
>     > easily disabled for testing various qdiscs... (can't remember the
>     > command offhand)
>
>     >> right support for that hardware.  I'm going to talk to Ubiquity if I
>     >> can on Monday.  It might not make sense to run *Wrt on this device,
>     >> not sure.
>
>     > There is a pretty modern looking up-to-date build of openwrt for the
>     > edgerouter, using 3.10, and so on. I am told however, that there are
>     > some problems with the toolchain, which show up when you try to use
>     > iptables. Haven't tried it myself (my edgerouter is 60km away), and
>     > don't know how to flash openwrt onto it in the first place.
>
> okay.
>
>     > the current edgerouter firmware (v.1.4.1) is based on 3.4.23, and has
>     > all the bugs in the 3.4 series.
>
>     > I backported fq_codel and the latest flow hashing stuff to that
>     > version; patch 0013 is a little problematic as yet:
>
> why did you backport, rather than move the kernel forward?

Getting a new kernel version stable is kind of a long, hard effort,
don't you think? Adding a single feature seems simpler...

> Are there custom pieces in 3.4 which need to be forward ported?

Doesn't look like it. Of course, any major kernel version change requires
extensive testing...

>     > http://snapon.lab.bufferbloat.net/~cero2/edgerouter-fq_codel-patches/

Wanted to convince ubnt that there was value in fq_codel. They only just
released v1.4.1 with 3.4 (a huge jump forward from their last
release), the prospect of another 3 year jump nonplussed them.

Besides the openwrt version is already at 3.10, and I was curious as to
being able to compare 3.4 vs 3.x, and how another OS implements QoS.
(they have a cisco IOS like interface that appears to be written in Perl)

I just retrieved my edgerouter this morning and have a kernel built...


>
> --
> ]               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    [
>



-- 
Dave Täht

Fixing bufferbloat with cerowrt: http://www.teklibre.com/cerowrt/subscribe.html