Is there a market for an open source router?

"Ramon F Herrera" stated in post snipped-for-privacy@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com on 6/30/08

6:07 PM:

That is an area where Linux and OSS should shine... 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).

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Snit

wrote on Mon, 30 Jun 2008 18:14:34 -0700 :

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.)

The standard "router UI" nowadays would probably be web-based.

That blogger is a bit confused. Linksys used both VxWorks and Linux in the WRT54G. Revisions 1.0-4.0 used Linux, then they used VxWorks from

5.0-8.0, then Linux in 8.1, then VxWorks in 8.2. So he is correct that they didn't exploit Linux in that model.

However, when they found that many people were specifically seeking out the Linux models in order to install their own software on them, they introduced the WRT54GL, which was basically a 4.x version of the WRT54G. It was marketed as running Linux so you could hack it as a feature.

Dunno... Cisco still has CLI IOS...

"The Ghost In The Machine" stated in post snipped-for-privacy@sirius.tgsuus8.net on 6/30/08 6:37 PM:

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.

Sure... but it could be customized and made much, much more flexible than my off-the-shelf general name brand router.

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Snit

wrote on Mon, 30 Jun 2008 19:43:37 -0700 :

I for one would think that such reporting is best done elsewhere, after a logging box receives and processes event traps (SNMP).

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).

"The Ghost In The Machine" stated in post snipped-for-privacy@sirius.tgsuus8.net on 6/30/08 9:26 PM:

...

Other might disagree. It allows for "choice". Hey! By saying that I do not have to defend why anyone would want that choice. :)

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. :)

• Tim Smith peremptorily fired off this memo:

Was that before or after Cisco acquired Linksys, though?

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.

Basically, a better appliance means you are less inclined to roll your own.

Somehow I think Ghost knows what a router is a lot better than you do.

So what? What has that to with whether the router runs Linux or a proprietary firmware?

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.

Are you sure that you're talking about a router and not a firewall?

I realize that routers usually include firewall functionality but what you're talking about sounds more like the functionality of the firewall rather than the functionality provided by the router.

- ss

...he also probably has a better grasp of English Exposition too.

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.

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.

"Subway steel" stated in post

486a36b4$0$25953$ snipped-for-privacy@read.cnntp.org on 7/1/08 6:52 AM:

In the context of the discussion - OSS for a router - one can assume a Firewall would almost surely be included.

The only real difference is the software it's running. The fact that a router anymore is just a specialized PC of sorts has caused that line to blur considerably.

Does Cisco even sell "real routers" anymore (running IOS or whatnot) that don't have some sort of firewall capacity?

I'm talking about what the hardware can do because it's overpowered and sits on the physical boundary between networks. If it can run something like snort then let it.

[deletia]

What Superman show with Jim Reeve?

This is only true for the lowest end cisco devices. Most midrange and highend routers have lots of ASIC gear in them to do lots of nice things.

Even most firewalls have lots of ASICs in them to get the throughput. A pure CPU based router/firewall is only the most basic, slowest box in cisco/juniper's product line.

Define firewall. Even the most basic low-end cisco has always had ACLs going way way back in history. But you do have to license the stateful inspection FW feature.

He spelled George Reeves incorrectly.

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, JEDIDIAH

wrote >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Snit

Maybe at the circuit layer. The actual gatekeeper is a laminated door. :-P

True.

Not any more it's not. Look up "hub" versus "switch"; the switch makes it point-to-point. A little odd, I know, and I frankly don't know exactly what it does in there but I suspect switches are now vulnerable to the teardrop IP fragmentation attack, whereas hubs were not.

Of course switches are also more efficient. ;-)

Verily I say unto thee, that Doug McIntyre spake thusly:

Licensed from whom?