[Cerowrt-devel] Fwd: wndr3800 replacement

[Martin Bailey]

The recently released v2 of the TP-Link Archer C7 router would be a
pretty good low-cost replacement. It's fully open-source Atheros/Qualcomm,
includes a fairly high performance 720MHz SOC with 128MB RAM, 16MB
flash and 6 dual-band antennas (AC1750) with very good range. It can
be found for $99 right now. The first hardware revision isn't
supported by the ath10k driver in OpenWRT so make sure to only
consider v2.

http://wiki.openwrt.org/toh/tp-link/tl-wdr7500
https://wikidevi.com/wiki/TP-LINK_Archer_C7_v2.x
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16833704177

> On Thu, 27 Mar 2014, Aaron Wood wrote:
>
>> Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 13:50:27 +0100
>> From: Aaron Wood <woody77 at gmail.com>
>> To: David Lang <david at lang.hm>
>> Cc: Dave Taht <dave.taht at gmail.com>,
>>     "cerowrt-devel at lists.bufferbloat.net"
>>     <cerowrt-devel at lists.bufferbloat.net>
>> Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] Fwd: wndr3800 replacement
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 11:11 PM, David Lang <david at lang.hm> wrote:
>>
>>> If the openwrt folks could figure out how they are going to deal with
>>> NAND
>>> flash, it would be nice to be able to use one of the many routers that is
>>> shipping with more flash (128M in the newer netgear routers would be
>>> nice)
>>>
>>> if I were to get my hands on one, what sort of testing would you want to
>>> do to it to tell if it looks like it would hold up?
>>
>>
>> I have experience running mtd on NAND, using jffs2.  It seems to be
>> holding
>> up well.  Better than NOR did, honestly.  Although in general, I wish they
>> would shift to eMMC.  But it's driven by two factors:
>>
>> 1) part cost
>> 2) chipset support from the router SoC vendors
>>
>> Given some of the wishes that I see on here, I think for development,
>> people would be happier with a platform that wasn't based on a router SoC
>> (like the wndr is), but instead was based on an embedded application
>> processor with PCIe for the radios, and an external switch fabric.
>
> I think we have two competing desires.
>
> one is to have a nice powerful device for those people who have fast
> connections
> and for us to experiment with.
>
> the second is to have a 'home' device.
>
> using a 3800 or similarly priced ($100-$150 USD) device that's readily
> available
> is very good for the second category, the question is if we can find one
> that's
> powerful enough for the first.
>
> David Lang
>
>>  But for
>> thermal purposes alone, I've been seeing more and more external switch
>> fabrics.  The heat of a 5-port gigabit switch IC is pretty substantial
>> (from my teardowns).
>>
>> One item I think will be a boon, especially with DNSSEC, is super-cap or
>> battery-backed rtc, but that's asking for a unicorn, I think.  Or...  a
>> Gateworks Ventana GW5310 loaded with a couple standard (industrial-grade)
>> PCIe radios, loaded into a custom case.  My guess is that it's a pretty
>> expensive route, though.  I would be surprised if a completely assembled
>> unit would be <$300.  At which point it starts to look better to just run
>> a
>> separate router and AP (using standard wndr-type platforms as the APs and
>> a
>> higher-end board or PC as the gateway).
>>
>> -Aaron
>>