Is there a market for an open source router?
Bookmark this page:
 Yahoo!
 Google
 Windows Live
 del.icio.us
 digg
 Netscape
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by The Ghost In The Machine on July 1, 2008, 12:26 am
Please log in for more thread options wrote on Mon, 30 Jun 2008 19:43:37 -0700 >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Snit
>> wrote >> on Mon, 30 Jun 2008 18:14:34 -0700 >>> a1bb0bfb-07ef-4d67-bef5-2f82875b2dd4@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com on 6/30/08
>>> 6:07 PM: >>> >>>> >>>> "While Cisco accidentally created an open source router a few years >>>> ago, getting caught with Linux in its Linksys, the company never >>>> exploited this as a feature, but treated it as a bug, blaming chip >>>> supplier Broadcom. >>>> >>>> Netgear is definitely treating this as a feature." >>>> >>>> http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=2612&tag=nl.e550 >>>> >>>> -RFH >>>> >>> That is an area where Linux and OSS should shine... >>
>> Why? A router's a router. Granted, I'd probably trust a >> Linux-based router a little more, since I can readily get >> the source code for it -- but what does a router do? It >> routes. Could be Linux. Could be Windows. Could be BSD. >> Could be a custom solution that is specific to that router >> hardware, though nowadays microprocessors are extremely >> common anyway, making a software solution practical. >> >> (Also problematic if there's a bug therein.) >
> There are also sorts of special needs things that people might want... or, > well, semi-special. :) > > Some examples: different types of logging and reporting of events (including > live reports), packet blocking or re-routing based on complex rules, someone > might want IP release and renewals to be automated based on time or events, > rules might be changed based on time and user in rather complex ways, on and > on... just a few things I can think of off hand. I am sure others can think > of many more. I for one would think that such reporting is best done elsewhere, after a logging box receives and processes event traps (SNMP). >
>>> set it and, for the most part, forget it... or even when you have to tinker
>>> there is a very limited amount of functionality you expect from a router... >>> UI issues become less important (though, obviously, still are important just >>> not as much as, say, on a desktop computer). >>> >> The standard "router UI" nowadays would probably be web-based.
>
> Sure... but it could be customized and made much, much more flexible than my > off-the-shelf general name brand router. > Aye, that it could. Of course the only one using that UI should be the network administrator, as it gets into the guts of the router (e.g., what ports are opened in the NAT firewall -- very dangerous in the wrong hands). -- #191, ewill3@earthlink.net Linux makes one use one's mind. Windows just messes with one's head. ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by Snit on July 1, 2008, 2:02 am
Please log in for more thread options ... >>>> That is an area where Linux and OSS should shine...
>>> >>> Why? A router's a router. Granted, I'd probably trust a >>> Linux-based router a little more, since I can readily get >>> the source code for it -- but what does a router do? It >>> routes. Could be Linux. Could be Windows. Could be BSD. >>> Could be a custom solution that is specific to that router >>> hardware, though nowadays microprocessors are extremely >>> common anyway, making a software solution practical. >>> >>> (Also problematic if there's a bug therein.) >>
>> There are also sorts of special needs things that people might want... or, >> well, semi-special. :) >> >> Some examples: different types of logging and reporting of events (including >> live reports), packet blocking or re-routing based on complex rules, someone >> might want IP release and renewals to be automated based on time or events, >> rules might be changed based on time and user in rather complex ways, on and >> on... just a few things I can think of off hand. I am sure others can think >> of many more. >
> I for one would think that such reporting is best done elsewhere, > after a logging box receives and processes event traps (SNMP). Other might disagree. It allows for "choice". Hey! By saying that I do not have to defend why anyone would want that choice. :) >>>> set it and, for the most part, forget it... or even when you have to tinker
>>>> there is a very limited amount of functionality you expect from a router... >>>> UI issues become less important (though, obviously, still are important >>>> just not as much as, say, on a desktop computer). >>>> >>> The standard "router UI" nowadays would probably be web-based. >>> >> Sure... but it could be customized and made much, much more flexible than my
>> off-the-shelf general name brand router. >
> Aye, that it could. Of course the only one using that UI should be the > network administrator, as it gets into the guts of the router (e.g., what > ports are opened in the NAT firewall -- very dangerous in the wrong hands). Right... but the network administrator could very well be someone at home... not a trained pro necessarily. In most cases there is a reason to *not* have every single choice available for easy alteration. Hey, just like an OS. :) -- When thinking changes your mind, that's philosophy. When God changes your mind, that's faith. When facts change your mind, that's science. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by JEDIDIAH on July 1, 2008, 9:35 am
Please log in for more thread options > In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Snit
> wrote > on Mon, 30 Jun 2008 18:14:34 -0700 >> a1bb0bfb-07ef-4d67-bef5-2f82875b2dd4@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com on 6/30/08
>> 6:07 PM: >> >>>
>>> "While Cisco accidentally created an open source router a few years >>> ago, getting caught with Linux in its Linksys, the company never >>> exploited this as a feature, but treated it as a bug, blaming chip >>> supplier Broadcom. >>> >>> Netgear is definitely treating this as a feature." >>> >>> http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=2612&tag=nl.e550 >>> >>> -RFH >>> >> That is an area where Linux and OSS should shine...
>
> Why? A router's a router. Granted, I'd probably trust a > Linux-based router a little more, since I can readily get > the source code for it -- but what does a router do? It It's a gatekeeper for your physical network. As such, there's a lot of traffic that can be blocked at the gateway that doesn't need to ever make it's way into the rest of your physical network. Ethernet is a broadcast medium, so the advantage of this is blatantly obvious. > routes. Could be Linux. Could be Windows. Could be BSD.
> Could be a custom solution that is specific to that router > hardware, though nowadays microprocessors are extremely > common anyway, making a software solution practical. > > (Also problematic if there's a bug therein.) > >> set it and, for the most
>> part, forget it... or even when you have to tinker there is a very limited >> amount of functionality you expect from a router... UI issues become less >> important (though, obviously, still are important just not as much as, say, >> on a desktop computer). >> >
> The standard "router UI" nowadays would probably be web-based. > Basically, a better appliance means you are less inclined to roll your own. -- vi isn't easy to use. ||| / | \ vi is easy to REPLACE. Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services ---------------------------------------------------------- http://www.usenet.com | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by Hadron on July 1, 2008, 9:42 am
Please log in for more thread options
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Snit
>> wrote >> on Mon, 30 Jun 2008 18:14:34 -0700 >>> a1bb0bfb-07ef-4d67-bef5-2f82875b2dd4@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com on 6/30/08
>>> 6:07 PM: >>> >>>> >>>> "While Cisco accidentally created an open source router a few years >>>> ago, getting caught with Linux in its Linksys, the company never >>>> exploited this as a feature, but treated it as a bug, blaming chip >>>> supplier Broadcom. >>>> >>>> Netgear is definitely treating this as a feature." >>>> >>>> http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=2612&tag=nl.e550 >>>> >>>> -RFH >>>> >>> That is an area where Linux and OSS should shine... >>
>> Why? A router's a router. Granted, I'd probably trust a >> Linux-based router a little more, since I can readily get >> the source code for it -- but what does a router do? It >
> It's a gatekeeper for your physical network. Somehow I think Ghost knows what a router is a lot better than you do. >
> As such, there's a lot of traffic that can be blocked at > the gateway that doesn't need to ever make it's way into > the rest of your physical network. So what? What has that to with whether the router runs Linux or a proprietary firmware? >
> Ethernet is a broadcast medium, so the advantage of this is blatantly obvious. > Please expand, unless, as usual, you're playing silly word games to make yourself appear informed about a blatantly obvious subject to most of the rest of is. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by JEDIDIAH on July 1, 2008, 9:57 am
Please log in for more thread options >
>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Snit
>>> wrote >>> on Mon, 30 Jun 2008 18:14:34 -0700 >>>> a1bb0bfb-07ef-4d67-bef5-2f82875b2dd4@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com on 6/30/08 >>>> 6:07 PM: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> "While Cisco accidentally created an open source router a few years >>>>> ago, getting caught with Linux in its Linksys, the company never >>>>> exploited this as a feature, but treated it as a bug, blaming chip >>>>> supplier Broadcom. >>>>> >>>>> Netgear is definitely treating this as a feature." >>>>> >>>>> http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=2612&tag=nl.e550 >>>>> >>>>> -RFH >>>>> >>>> That is an area where Linux and OSS should shine... >>> >>> Why? A router's a router. Granted, I'd probably trust a >>> Linux-based router a little more, since I can readily get >>> the source code for it -- but what does a router do? It >>
>> It's a gatekeeper for your physical network. >
> Somehow I think Ghost knows what a router is a lot better than you do. ...he also probably has a better grasp of English Exposition too. >
>>
>> As such, there's a lot of traffic that can be blocked at >> the gateway that doesn't need to ever make it's way into >> the rest of your physical network. >
> So what? What has that to with whether the router runs Linux or a > proprietary firmware? You can't adapt proprietary firmware. I suspect that Ghost wouldn't need that bit spelled out for him as if he were a 2 year old. >
>>
>> Ethernet is a broadcast medium, so the advantage of this is blatantly obvious. >> >
> Please expand, unless, as usual, you're playing silly word games to make > yourself appear informed about a blatantly obvious subject to most of > the rest of is. Why bother? You've already told me that my primary audience is well informed. If you were more literate perhaps you would complain about "word games" less. You sound like some old woman that immigrated when she was middle aged and never quite fully mastered her newly adopted language. -- vi isn't easy to use. ||| / | \ vi is easy to REPLACE. Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services ---------------------------------------------------------- http://www.usenet.com | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Similar Threads | Posted |
| Is there a market for an open source router? | June 30, 2008, 9:07 pm |
| Open Source Network Management | March 29, 2006, 1:13 pm |
| Open source network management application similar to CiscoWorks | June 30, 2006, 4:59 pm |
| how to open a port on a Cisco 1800 series router | February 19, 2008, 9:02 am |
| Source Group | January 4, 2006, 1:36 am |
| ....source based pbr + bgp? | January 30, 2006, 5:59 pm |
| bgp source routing | February 22, 2006, 8:12 am |
| Source and destination NAT | June 25, 2007, 11:20 pm |
| source nat in pix 506 for vpn clients | March 21, 2008, 9:27 am |
| AAA with loopback as source ip address | January 10, 2006, 11:09 am |
| Source for CISCO Routers ! | January 15, 2006, 7:23 am |
| Static and Source IP when on the Internet | May 20, 2006, 1:43 pm |
| IP nat inside source command. | July 14, 2006, 9:53 am |
| CSS 11506 - Source address | August 25, 2006, 5:47 am |
| T3 timing - clock source | September 14, 2006, 11:22 am |
>