[Cerowrt-devel] failing to find the "declared victory" in a current wifi router

[Sebastian Moeller]

Hi Joe,

On Jul 8, 2015, at 20:37 , Joe Touch <touch at isi.edu> wrote:

> Hi, Matt,
> 
> On 7/7/2015 11:19 AM, Matt Taggart wrote:...
>> This message made me realize I hadn't posted the CC+SQM HOWTO I
>> wrote, maybe it will be useful,
>> 
>> https://we.riseup.net/lackof/openwrt
> 
> FWIW, this is a big step in the direction I was suggesting.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> The other step, IMO, would be two flags in the OpenWRT list of hardware:
> 
> 	- a flag/color that indicates that the most recent hardware rev
> 	supports BB
> 
> 	- a different flag/color that indicates that the most recent
> 	hardware rev supports CC

	If you look at http://wiki.openwrt.org/toh/start you should have noticed two columns: version and status:
status was/is supposed from which version openwrt supports that specific router
version is supposed to tell which versions of said router actually fall under the supported status. 
Granted, status are not filled for all routers and sometimes with the unfortunate label “trunk” without stating a date or release number, but these seem to be the minority. Versionseems to be in worse shape with lots of “-“ and “?”. 
	By the way, you keep repeating the phrase “most recent hardware rev.” as if there was a common repository somewhere on the web from which to deduce what the most recent incarnation of each specific router name/type is; as it stands this information is filled in by volunteers, based on what version they got from a store/vendor/OEM and their installation testing/development. 
	I would love to learn if you have a better way of collecting that information preferably in an automated fashion?

> 
> The current list is a confusing mix of information about very old,
> sometimes EOL (end-of-life) equipment.

        What is bad about keeping information? Just because a device is EOL by its manufacturer/vendor does not necessarily mean it is completely out of the retail channel/ second hand retail/sharing channel, so keeping information how to give such devices a “second life” as openwrt routers seems like a good idea to me.

> 
> To those who have invited me to participate in the research, thanks, but
> sometimes I just want to *use* a solution.

	Fair enough. I noticed I might seem a bit grumpy, not sure why but I would blame it on the weird weather here...

Best Regards
	Sebastian


> I'm OK with a buggy,
> partially unstable one, but I don't always want to dive into
> developer-mode for every system I'd like to test out.
> 
> Joe
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Cerowrt-devel mailing list
> Cerowrt-devel at lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel