On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 17:16:32 -0500 Joel Newkirk <freerun...@newkirk.us> wrote:
> I disagree - I've been a vocal proponent for many months of "tidying > up" networking, including setting IP and subnet to something less > likely to lead to conflicts. Yes, I agree that the vast majority of > people using a FreeRunner as I type this are quite capable of > performing the changes you mention in under 2 minutes, but I also > believe that most would be quite happy if they were not required to > do so every time they flash their FR. I personally use > 192.168.0.202/30, with host machine (gateway from FR of course) set > to .201, solely because that lets me set a static config on hosts to > which I tether my FR and always reach even a fresh flashed image, > with minimal disruption accessing other networks. (we have over 50 > subnets at work, including 192.168.0.0/24, that I need to access > 24/7) But I'd be wholeheartedly in support of a change to a less > conflict-ridden subnet as the default, or at least a change of > default to /30. > > "We've" not standardized on any set of IPs, and "finally" isn't even > apropo since the 192.168.0.202/24 IP has been the de facto standard > at least back to OM 2007.2. And whether I am alone in not being > "happy with it" or not, I like to believe I know how to use my > system, being a veteran linux network/server admin for a broadband > provider. > > > Taking a broader and longer view of things, the goal of Openmoko > surely is a smartphone that can be sold to general consumers, not > just linux hackers, and as such it's entirely sensible to establish > defaults that will cause the least degree of inconvenience to owners > as possible. (and in some opinions - including my own, after > answering countless hundreds of phone calls from broadband users who > don't even know what an IP address /IS/ - necessary) And the earlier > that change is made the better for the long term: the more > FreeRunners there are in the wild, the more people there are who will > be affected at the point of changeover, and the more likely they are > to be less linux-networking-savvy than the average community member > today. > > I think an eventual goal may be to have a USB networking config GUI > and include that in initial setup steps for new owners or following a > complete reflash, but until then (and as default entry from that > point onward) I agree with establishing a default USBnet config that > is less likely to cause the user any extra effort. > > > Make the default network config as maintenance-free and > interference-free as possible, and any linux hackers who want it more > convoluted can surely take the 60 seconds they'd need to complicate > it. :) > > j I couldn't agree more. I have a D-Link at home, that uses by default 192.168/16 as network, so I have to change my freerunner as well after each reflash. And I'd like to believe I'm not the only one owning a small router (for those curious: my D-Link doesn't allow me to change my network range, so I need to change my freerunnner) > On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 10:50:14 -0800, "Sargun Dhillon" > <xbmodder+openm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Most Linux users, or most users that this device is aimed at are > > intelligent enough to do a > > "ip addr add 192.168.0.200/32 dev usb0" > > "ip route add 192.168.0.202/32 dev usb0" not quite complete ... you need to set IP forwarding on the linux box, change the netmask and the default route on FR and change the /etc/resolv.conf file as well, otherwise no "opkg update" or alike. I *know* people like free DNS servers, but most ISP's block access to any other dns server in the world but their own, so ... So I vote for a less used range as well. Franky _______________________________________________ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community