From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from bobcat.rjmcmahon.com (bobcat.rjmcmahon.com [45.33.58.123]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5A5043CB39 for ; Thu, 12 Oct 2023 12:04:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail.rjmcmahon.com (bobcat.rjmcmahon.com [45.33.58.123]) by bobcat.rjmcmahon.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id A012C1B258; Thu, 12 Oct 2023 09:04:32 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 bobcat.rjmcmahon.com A012C1B258 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rjmcmahon.com; s=bobcat; t=1697126672; bh=EX5fZ1y5yOU42hRsjOWYI3XI6wpnJS7lvncd59z9yJ8=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=dUPMVK8Lw61kj+t3WER2q+Rjgayt+U8wPH5eAaoD6WfZaqUezbM7auDyAo0LyAVm9 CfsXGrybqFd89/82sEXr8RLeadpNKtiCEhqh8tCpqx5noaTrAdTAK5BdGZA9eCDFuS uTMm80eJGGhN6H6xFWumXjDbpfIq+m6Vp+6BebNM= MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2023 09:04:32 -0700 From: rjmcmahon To: =?UTF-8?Q?Network_Neutrality_is_back!_Let=C2=B4s_make_the_technical_a?= =?UTF-8?Q?spects_heard_this_time!?= In-Reply-To: <6a03ab3b-8e1c-4727-9fd9-07a38db4fb73@rjmcmahon.com> References: <9f79b6f4b45c45c6d2fd2a43783f0157@rjmcmahon.com> <6a03ab3b-8e1c-4727-9fd9-07a38db4fb73@rjmcmahon.com> Message-ID: <589a1dbc49063b7e494d686ad9d71193@rjmcmahon.com> X-Sender: rjmcmahon@rjmcmahon.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [NNagain] Internet Education for Non-technorati? X-BeenThere: nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: =?utf-8?q?Network_Neutrality_is_back!_Let=C2=B4s_make_the_technical_aspects_heard_this_time!?= List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2023 16:04:33 -0000 Sorry, my openwrt information seems to be incorrect and more vendors use openwrt then I realized. So, I really don't know the numbers here. I do agree with the idea that fixes should be pushed to the mainline and that incremental upgrades should be standard practice. Arista's SW VP gave a talk where he said that 80% of their customer calls about bugs were already fixed but their customer wasn't following an upgrade policy. This approach applies to most any sw based product. Bob > Hi David, > > The vendors I know don't roll their own os code either. The make their > own release still mostly based from Linux and they aren't tied to the > openwrt release process. > > I think GUIs on CPEs are the wrong direction. Consumer network > equipment does best when it's plug and play. Consumers don't have all > the skills needed to manage an in home packet network that includes > wifi. > > I recently fixed a home network for my inlaws. It's a combo of > structured wire and WiFi APs. I purchased the latest equipment from > Amazon vs use the ISP provided equipment. I can do this reasonably > well because I'm familiar with the chips inside. > > The online tech support started with trepidation as he was concerned > that the home owner, i.e me, wasn't as skilled as the ISP technicians. > He suggested we schedule that but I said we were good to go w/o one. > > He asked to speak to my father in law when we were all done. He told > him, "You're lucky to have a son in law that know what he's doing. My > techs aren't as good, and I really liked working with him too." > > I say this not to brag, as many on this list could do the equivalent, > but to show that we really need to train lots of technicians on things > like RF and structured wiring. Nobody should be "lucky" to get a > quality in home network. We're not lucky to have a flush toilet > anymore. This stuff is too important to rely on luck. > > Bob > On Oct 11, 2023, at 3:58 PM, David Lang wrote: > >> On Wed, 11 Oct 2023, rjmcmahon wrote: >> >>> I don't know the numbers but a guess is that a majority of SoCs >>> with WiFi >>> radios aren't based on openwrt. >> >> From what I've seen, the majority of APs out there are based on >> OpenWRT or one >> of the competing open projects, very few roll their own OS from >> scratch >> >>> I think many on this list use openwrt but >>> that may not be representative of the actuals. Also, the trend is >>> less sw in >>> a CPU forwarding plane and more hw, one day, linux at the CPEs may >>> not be >>> needed at all (if we get to remote radio heads - though this is >>> highly >>> speculative.) >> >> that is countered by the trend to do more (fancier GUI, media >> center, etc) The >> vendors all want to differentiate themselves, that's hard to do if >> it's baked >> into the chips >> >>> From my experience, sw is defined by the number & frequency of >>> commits, and >>> of timeliness to issues more than a version number or compile >>> date. So the >>> size and quality of the software staff can be informative. >>> >>> I'm more interested in mfg node process then the mfg location & >>> date as the >>> node process gives an idea if the design is keeping up or not. >>> Chips designed >>> in 2012 are woefully behind and consume too much energy and >>> generate too much >>> heat. I think Intel provides this information on all its chips as >>> an example. >> >> I'm far less concerned about the chips than the software. Security >> holes are far >> more likely in the software than the chips. The chips may limit the >> max >> performance of the devices, but the focus of this is on the >> security, not the >> throughput or the power efficiency (I don't mind that extra info, >> but what makes >> some device unsafe to use isn't the age of the chips, but the age of >> the >> software) >> >> David Lang >> >> Bob >> On Wed, 11 Oct 2023, David Bray, PhD via Nnagain wrote: >> >> There's also the concern about how do startups roll-out such a >> label for >> their tech in the early iteration phase? How do they afford to do >> the >> extra >> work for the label vs. a big company (does this become a regulatory >> moat?) >> >> And let's say we have these labels. Will only consumers with the >> money to >> purchase the more expensive equipment that has more privacy and >> security >> features buy that one - leaving those who cannot afford privacy and >> security bad alternatives? >> >> As far as security goes, I would argue that the easy answer is to >> ship >> a current version of openwrt instead of a forked, ancient version, >> and >> get their changes submitted upstream (or at least maintained against >> upstream). It's a different paradigm than they are used to, and >> right >> now the suppliers tend to also work with ancient versions of >> openwrt, >> but in all the companies that I have worked at, it's proven to be >> less >> ongoing work (and far less risk) to keep up with current versions >> than >> it is to stick with old versions and then do periodic 'big jump' >> upgrades. >> >> it's like car maintinance, it seems easier to ignore your tires, >> brakes, and oil changes, but the minimal cost of maintaining those >> systems pays off in a big way over time >> >> David Lang >> >> ------------------------- >> >> Nnagain mailing list >> Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net >> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain >> >> ------------------------- >> >> Nnagain mailing list >> Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net >> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain > _______________________________________________ > Nnagain mailing list > Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain