Re: OpenWrt One / project update

Hi Felix Thanks for the clarification. Yeah, USB may be Ok, but M.2 isn't for all usages, specially the simplest and less costly ones. I see that a SD Card is still quiet universal, very cheap for all sorts of projects. Regarding the the standard for the SD card spec I can't answer that, but

Re: OpenWrt One / project update

Hello there Good work so far. Did I miss anything, but I couldn't find a SD Card slot. Isn't there one ? Regards Fernando On 04/04/2024 07:00, John Crispin wrote: Hi, Just dropping a quick update on the  OpenWrt One project. I've received the first batch of three PCBs for testing today. I

Re: here we are again: real name 'discussion'

Why this insistence on a vote while the discussion is still going on ? Why this interest in cut other people's opinion while there is stuff to be discussed and may change others idea. It is not because a certain direction seems to be the way to go that a discussion should be abruptly stopped

Re: OpenWrt Next Generation Ideas

Hello there I also don't have Notion account so will reply here to all can take note and discuss. I have basically 2 notes: 1 - One thing that would be interesting to have it by default regarding IPv6 is make the router to find out if it received an IPv6 address in the WAN interface but not

Re: 24 core buildbot server donation feasible

I advise to not to accept this from Equinix for the bad they have been doing in the interconnection market in different places. Sometimes is just better to pay for what you need with donations received it rather than accept something from certain companies. On 21/11/2022 05:39, Petr Štetiar

Re: [PATCH] base-files: Don't enable ULA IPv6 addresses by default in new config

One of the first things I do when I bring up a new OpenWrt box is to disable ULA to the LAN as it has not usage in most scenarios I think. I basically use the IPv6 connectivity to receive a global prefix delegated from my ISP, install it on the LAN and bring global connectivity to devices

Re: [PATCH] build: always set CONFIG_IPV6

I find strange any conversation around disabling IPv6 these days, regardless the reason. It should be mandatory even if some ISPs don't have it enabled yet. How can one say that IPv6 may be unwanted ? If there is such scenario there is something very wrong there. What should be fixed is the

Re: Drop CONFIG_IPV6 ?

IPv6 is not a "nice to have" think. If you are using OpenWrt and consider IPv6 a nice to have thing you should do some reading and network understanding as it seems it lacks some very fundamental one to you. I see people often complaining they don't get IPv6 from their ISPs and what is the

Re: Drop CONFIG_IPV6 ?

How come, at the stage we are, one can be thinking of disabling IPv6 just because the ISP didn't deploy it yet ? How one can expect IPv6 to advance (and it has been going farily well), if routers at end user have IPv6 disabled ? What when the ISP finishes deployment and deliver IPv6 yo users

Re: Automatic LAN Subnet Reassignment

Interesting feature. Another similar thing is when someone connects a OpenWrt WAN port to another router LAN port (cascading) which has IPv6 support as the upstream router isn't normally able to do Prefix Delegation with its LAN prefix the OpenWrt router detects it and re-configure itself with

Re: OpenWrt 22.0X release plan

Thanks for all the work done towards this. And thankfully SELinux will not be activated by default. Regards Fernando On 20/02/2022 19:57, Hauke Mehrtens wrote: Hi, All the major new features for the next OpenWrt major release are mostly merged into master. The kernel 5.10 upgrade for the

Re: Activate https server support in 21.02 by default

ntial secure risk ahead" with regards to the certificate. Greets, Perry On 5/17/21 4:48 PM, Fernando Frediani wrote: Seems good to me. The main question is: most home users will require it ? I don't think so. But there may be others that may do, so as long http does not forward to https se

Re: [RFC] OpenWrt within a Docker container

Hello Certainly run /sbin/init or 'procd' to have *OpenWrt-like experience* is a better approach in my view. Regards Fernando On 17/05/2021 15:39, Paul Spooren wrote: Hello, after some back and forth I'd like to request some more opinions on what kind of Docker containers to offer

Re: Activate https server support in 21.02 by default

Seems good to me. The main question is: most home users will require it ? I don't think so. But there may be others that may do, so as long http does not forward to https seems a good approach so those who want can deliberately use https. I think as it stands now forcing https only would be a

Re: Activate https server support in 21.02 by default

On 15/05/2021 18:57, Alberto Bursi wrote: If HTTPS is still an optional it makes no sense to treat it differently from all other optional packages. The only moment it should be included by default is when it becomes mandatory, and the HTTP interface is disabled. Maybe you are right here.

Re: Activate https server support in 21.02 by default

On 15/05/2021 16:59, Alberto Bursi wrote: I'm personally in the "encrypt all the things" camp. I fully support a switch to https only. But it should be a default, not a "let's add stuff people might want to enable later". Either all in or all out. Perhaps that's the problem. There has

Re: Activate https server support in 21.02 by default

in the context where every byte counts it may be a good compromise to have it available but not enabled by default. Regards Fernando On 14/05/2021 11:22, Etienne Champetier wrote: Hi All, Le ven. 14 mai 2021 à 05:00, Petr Štetiar a écrit : Fernando Frediani [2021-05-11 20:13:18]: Hi, I am no sure

Re: Activate https server support in 21.02 by default

I am no sure https support should still be something by default in the images as it's not something really essential although the storage usage increase seems really low based on what you mention. Fernando On 11/05/2021 19:55, Hauke Mehrtens wrote: Hi, OpenWrt 21.02 currently ships with

Re: Paid support for MT7621 WAN port bugs in 21.02 HEAD/MASTER

That's a great initiative. Well done. Regards mt76 driver if I am not wrong MediaTek had sponsored someone from the community a while ago to develop it, but I guess that is not the case anymore. If after this offer someone can take it again that would be great. These 2 bugs are not the only

Re: 20.xx: postponse LuCI HTTPS per default

image. On 20/11/2020 13:32, Alberto Bursi wrote: On 20/11/20 17:17, Fernando Frediani wrote: Hi Alberto On 20/11/2020 13:09, Alberto Bursi wrote: The only thing I can accept as a valid complaint against https by default is the increased minimum space requirements, everything else I really

Re: 20.xx: postponse LuCI HTTPS per default

Hi Alberto On 20/11/2020 13:09, Alberto Bursi wrote: The only thing I can accept as a valid complaint against https by default is the increased minimum space requirements, everything else I really don't understand nor agree with. It's exactly this I am referring to when I talk about the

Re: 20.xx: postponse LuCI HTTPS per default

The only reason I see to have HTTPS and certificates in OpenWrt in my view is to give some layer of security for those accessing the router via Wifi or over the Internet for example. And only admins, who have setup the router or work directly with it will access it (not normal users) so they

Re: 20.xx: postponse LuCI HTTPS per default

replace the self-signed one for Let's Encrypt for example. Regards Fernando On 20/11/2020 11:46, Alberto Bursi wrote: On 20/11/20 14:22, Fernando Frediani wrote: I don't see having HTTPS by default in LuCI as something good or even necessary ? It's actually an unnecessary complication that could

Re: 20.xx: postponse LuCI HTTPS per default

I don't see having HTTPS by default in LuCI as something good or even necessary ? It's actually an unnecessary complication that could always be optional. One of the main reasons is that in many and probably most cases of a new deployed OpenWrt router there is still no Internet connection

Re: A proposal of https certificate assignment system for luci

On 09/10/2020 08:29, Bas Mevissen wrote: On 2020-10-04 15:48, abnoeh wrote: . So I think it is reasonably safe to do the initial setup over HTTP (without the "S") at the first boot if there are no certificates available from a previous OpenWRT install. Then the user can setup the WAN side if

Re: A proposal of https certificate assignment system for luci

I am not sure click though certificate warning is that much of a security issue in this context neither OpenWrt should have certificates issued by default if I understood it correctly. Most people accessing OpenWrt LuCI interface knows what it is and would not find it strange to have to

Re: ath79: move 8/32 boards to tiny subtarget

I have some concern to call tiny the 8/32 boards. While I understand the 4MB flash devices as phased out the 8/32 are still very popular and probably most of the devices still running in many and many places and they are not really tiny as of today. Some newer low priced are coming with 8/64,

Fwd: Re: Policy on BUILD_PATENTED

On 10/08/2020 06:08, Adrian Schmutzler wrote: But still, OpenWrt as a project/organization in embedded in an environment it has to care about. And that of course includes caring about the interests of important stakeholders (or at least ask them about those), and not make our decisions

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] FULL CONE NAT in OpenWrt

and do-not allow for their PD announcements (via dhcpv6) to be statically set, even when their ipv4 addressing On Tue, 5 May 2020 at 09:02, Fernando Frediani <mailto:fhfredi...@gmail.com>> wrote: I believe NAT66 should not be stimulated in any sense. One of the greatest thing

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] FULL CONE NAT in OpenWrt

I believe NAT66 should not be stimulated in any sense. One of the greatest things of IPv6 is to restore end to end communication. PDs should only change when there is a re-connection and the CPE should be able able to handle that correctly updating its LAN prefixes accordingly. Stimulating and

[OpenWrt-Devel] Questions about IPv6 and NDP-Proxy

Hello I have seen on some old OpenWrt documentation (https://openwrt.org/docs/guide-user/network/ipv6/start#router_advertisement_dhcpv6) that by default when the router cannot receive a IPv6 Prefix Delegation (IPv6-PD) but only an IPv6 in the WAN it can automatically detect it and act as a

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Hamburg 2019 developer meeting details

Hello Petr and all Thanks for the detailed update about the meeting in Hamburg. I wanted to make a some comments about a few points I consider important for the project as someone that has been here for a while. - Release Manager - I fully support it. It is something I suggested a while ago in

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Problem with "base" release repositories

+1 Thanks for all Jo. Fernando On 26/06/2019 05:50, Bjørn Mork wrote: Jo-Philipp Wich writes: the base repositories have been fully restored and should be safe to use again. Thank you for both fast resolution and the continous info updates. That's pretty impressive, and I just have to

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] LEDE 17.01.7 and OpenWrt 18.06.3 deadline on Friday

Hello all. Thanks Jo for the update. One thing that was discussed here a while ago and unless I am mistaken never came to a conclusion was the possibility of extending the life of 17.01.x a little while due to many cases of 18.06 and its significant improvements not being able to run on so

[OpenWrt-Devel] Europe to vote a regulation that may forbidden alternative software on radio devices

Hi all Not sure if this was shared already but European Union is discussing at the moment regulations which may make impossible to install a custom piece of software on most radio devices, as OpenWrt for example and others.

[OpenWrt-Devel] Problems related to High Load on new LuCI

Hi all. I just wanted to let everyone know about this pretty interesting discussion on OpenWrt Forum about the ongoing problem of High Load on new LuCI interface since 18.01. https://forum.openwrt.org/t/proposal-and-solution-for-high-load-fix-on-openwrt-luci/29006 Perhaps people and

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] [RFC] stop accepting 4/32M board patches

On 20/12/2018 17:46, James Feeney wrote: There also seems to be a presumption that a "newbie" is, or should be, running luci. I believe that that is also an inappropriate assumption. I think that is a pretty reasonable assumption. A newbie does need a web interface. I would say more: that is

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] [RFC] stop accepting 4/32M board patches

On 05/12/2018 12:18, Mathias Kresin wrote: Please don't top post and keep all lists as recipients. I added openwrt-devel back to the list of recipients. 05/12/2018 14:57, Fernando Frediani: Hi Just to make it clear you mean that for the master right ? Not for 18.06 (when it becomes 19.0x) and LEDE

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] OpenWrt Roadmap

Has this discussion gone anywhere ? Are we keeping LEDE 17.01 for a little while under these conditions or not ? Regards Fernando On 12/11/2018 18:57, Fernando Frediani wrote: Totally agree with Luiz. That was the idea behind this proposal and you managed to even easier words. Alberto

[OpenWrt-Devel] PCP and Allow Port Forward for IPv6

Hello folks. I wanted to ask something specific regarding PCP, IPv6 and incoming traffic to clients. If I remember well, a long time ago when full IPv6 support was being added to OpenWrt there was a hot discussion if the default firewall rules for IPv6 should allow any incoming connections

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] OpenWrt Roadmap

: On 12/11/18 21:57, Fernando Frediani wrote: Totally agree with Luiz. That was the idea behind this proposal and you managed to even easier words. Alberto, the tiny subtarget you mentioned doesn't really seem to run well or stably for 18.06 on many of these devices regardless the flash size

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] OpenWrt Roadmap

Totally agree with Luiz. That was the idea behind this proposal and you managed to even easier words. Alberto, the tiny subtarget you mentioned doesn't really seem to run well or stably for 18.06 on many of these devices regardless the flash size, that's the main point. As mentioned there are

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] OpenWrt Roadmap

Hello. I want to make a point about LEDE 17.01 branch. I have seen in the forums and also testing myself the many people are running LEDE 17.01 pretty stable and with good performance on older devices. As we know there are 18.06 builds for some of these devices as well but that have been reports

[OpenWrt-Devel] TP-Link Archer C20 v4 and MediaTek MT7628AN and MT7610E

Hello folks I have been trying to make TP-Link Archer C20 v4 to work with OpenWrt. It has already a build however both 2.4Ghz and 5Ghz wifi don't work properly at present. For the 2.4 Ghz although it has support it is very unstable and unusable as for the MT76 driver used. Has anyone used a

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] [LEDE-DEV] 18.06 Status?

/05/2018 20:41, Fernando Frediani wrote: One characteristic from OpenWrt, different from other projects is the lack of a leader or a person who can gather others together, make some decisions or push for them to happen. If one doesn't like this title it can also be "Project Manager" o

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] [LEDE-DEV] 18.06 Status?

One characteristic from OpenWrt, different from other projects is the lack of a leader or a person who can gather others together, make some decisions or push for them to happen. If one doesn't like this title it can also be "Project Manager" or "Project Coordinator". This, in my view, makes a

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Google Summer of Code 2018 - Ideas

I tried to add something but couldn't manage to. The point would be related to implementing TDMA for OpenWrt which seems to have been considered many times and some work has been done but never concluded. If someone finds it suitable feel free to put it up. Thanks Fernando On 22/01/2018

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] DPDK APP

That would be a awasome feature if possible. Fernando On 9 Sep 2017 04:55, "yug...@telincn.com" wrote: > Hi all, > Whether if there is a way to surpport building DPDK and APP on or for > openwrt? > > Regards, > Ewan > > -- > yug...@telincn.com

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Talks between OpenWrt and LEDE

benefits LEDE has brought in terms of flexibility, agility and transparency to all contributors. Thanks Fernando Frediani On 21 December 2016 at 16:06, Hauke Mehrtens <ha...@hauke-m.de> wrote: > We had multiple meetings to find a solution to solve the problems > between the OpenWrt

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Mirroring OpenWRT at MIT

Hello Madars, It´s nice to see that people still get interested in helping OpenWrt project, but as you may have seen that's one of the main issues of it: that lack of response, even for people willing to give extra hands and resources. No wonder why LEDE came up ! Based on things like this it

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] OpenWrt / LEDE

Wow. What a great email !!! OpenWrt core people who have decided to stay with the project think carefully about it. In my humble vision reunite with LEDE new ideas and keeping the well stabilished OpenWrt name is the ideal scenario. Put aside the diferences and makd an effort for this to happen.

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Introducing the LEDE project

On 4 May 2016 at 21:05, Daniel Dickinson <open...@daniel.thecshore.com> wrote: > On 16-05-04 07:59 PM, Fernando Frediani wrote: > > Just curious to know by the names that signed the announcement of the > > new project being know OpenWrt Developers why weren't there enough vot

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Introducing the LEDE project

Just curious to know by the names that signed the announcement of the new project being know OpenWrt Developers why weren't there enough votes inside OpenWrt to do this reboot and reorganize it completely under the LEDE Project ideas ? The LEDE ideas are great and the the long time and

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] [PATCH][ar71xx] Mikrotik Routerboard RB2011 switch fix

Out of curiosity. Dp these builds of OpenWrt for Mikrotik RBs make usage of any possible hardware off-loads or config customizations are CPU affinity possibility made by Mikrotik themselves in their original RouterOS ? Thanks Fernando On 15/10/2015 14:48, George Chriss wrote: On Thu, April

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] [PATCH][ar71xx] Mikrotik Routerboard RB2011 switch fix

. As the wiki doesn't mention that I asked it here. Thanks Fernando On 15/10/2015 15:17, George Chriss wrote: On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 2:00 PM, Fernando Frediani <fhfredi...@gmail.com <mailto:fhfredi...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > Out of curiosity. Dp these builds of OpenWrt for Mikrotik RBs

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Introducing "fastpath" - Kernel module for speeding up IP forwarding

That would be a really intresting and important feature for many hardware. Fernando On 26/09/2015 23:57, Weedy wrote: Did this die? On 22 Dec 2014 9:06 am, "Tomer Eliyahu" > wrote: Hi, We are software developers, part of

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] European Commission secretly passes same measure as FCC OpenWRT ban ?

I have the impression that this type of fight is the same of in the early days of MP3 Audio/Vídeo industry fighting against it. And now Taxi companies fighting against Uber. It´s a fight, that even coming from government, will never be won. Fernando On 03/09/2015 21:07, demos wrote: i think

[OpenWrt-Devel] Change realtime graphs interval

Guys, Have been searching and couldn´t find anything in the configuration. How can I change the Realtime Graphs update time from 3 seconds to 1 second ? Do I need to recompile or is it something changeable in the configuration ? Thanks Fernando

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Chaos Calmer 15.05-rc3

Cool. Does this Fixed broken IPv6 downstream DHCPv6-PD and onlink-route handling fix the issue with loosing the default gateway for IPv6 and only fixing when you reboot the router ? Fernando On 16/07/2015 11:39, Steven Barth wrote: The OpenWrt developers are proud to announce the third

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] alternatives to TDMA

Hi Bill, I´m not sure about this. Do you have the source to confirm this ? Fernando On 14/07/2015 12:50, Bill Moffitt wrote: My understanding is that UBNT has an ASIC in their devices to help with the timing of the TDMA mode. My suspicion is that, without that ASIC, software only TDMA would

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Chaos Calmer 15.05-rc2

Anyone ? I am still investigating this issue and trying to figure out if it's a Openwrt or ISP problem. Would that changelog have anything to do with this ? Fernando On 13/06/2015 12:43, Fernando Frediani wrote: Hi folks, I'm seeing an issue on my Barrier Breaker running on a TP-Link

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Chaos Calmer 15.05-rc2

Hi folks, I'm seeing an issue on my Barrier Breaker running on a TP-Link WR842ND where it gets an IPv6 /128 to the WAN interface + /64 on the LAN interface via DHCPv6 + PD, however it does NOT set the default gateway by default, so I have to discover it and set manually using the other-side

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Dirty Diamond

+1 On 07/04/2015 16:47, Hartmut Knaack wrote: That Doodle poll turned out to be spamed/trolled, and everyone could even change or delete other votes. Since this was just communicated over this mailing list, and subscribers are at least basically verified, why not have a good old fashioned poll?

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Why OpenWrt sucks?

Hi Gergely, I'm just curious to know what makes you be pretty sure that many vendors will start doing this in the future and overcome the possible legal or political issues they may have to do that ? Marvel was one of the worst cases I've ever seen here and I have no much idea what made them

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Why OpenWrt sucks?

Hello Valent, I think, despite that fact you will get some opposition about some points you mentioned here, your email was a good email in my point of view. First the the most controversial point about how much Atheros contribute to the open-source world and to Linux is seems to be that they

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Alternatives do TDMA

Hello bkil, Many thanks for your detailed response. I would gladly post it to openwrt-users if that worked, which doesn't seem to be the case as far as I know. But also taking the opportunity in this devel list to ask if anyone worked of ever saw any work to develop a open TDMA

[OpenWrt-Devel] Alternatives do TDMA

Hi guys, What is the best alternative to TDMA when using OpenWRT and Outdoor / PtMP access ? Any specific configuration to be done in OpenWRT in order to deal with multiple clients in different ranges ? Thanks Fernando ___ openwrt-devel mailing

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Is Linksys/Belkin lying (again) about being open source (WRT1200AC router) ?

Hi, Great email Valent, and I fully agree with your comments. We have had this discussion here in the past and nothing much changed from Belkin side (actually it got worse as they disappeared apparently) showing a total failure on product release. I'm not entirely sure of the status of

[OpenWrt-Devel] WRT1900AC - Available firmwares ?

Hi all, Does anyone here have a Linksys WRT1900AC (that fiasco that suppose to be the new generation of WRT54G) ? I got one a while ago and have been following the firmware development for it directly with Belkin people and on the URL -

[OpenWrt-Devel] Kernel 3.15 - zRAM LZ4 Compression

Best regards, Fernando Frediani ___ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Linksys WRT54G / 16mb / wifi / lowmem / concurrency

Hi Bastian, These are very good news. Well done. So, should I assume that this result is already using zram ? Regards, Fernando On 17/12/2014 06:41, Bastian Bittorf wrote: I did some experiments to get our good old Linksys WRT54G running with recent trunk r43602 / kernel 3.14.26. We are only

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] [PATCH] ZRAM: enhacements including /tmp on ZRAM for Barrier Breaker

Hi all, It would be great if someone could port ZRAM to AA so it can be used on 16MB devices too. Despite the kernel version doesn't have it, it had several ports that work on that version. By the way. As BB has it natively (I suppose), has anyone used BB with ZRAM stably on 16MB devices

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] [PATCH] ZRAM: enhacements including /tmp on ZRAM for Barrier Breaker

By the way. Has anyone compiled and used BB 14.07 for devices with 16MB of RAM that went unsupported with AA release because of lack of ZRAM ? Fernando On 22/10/2014 08:20, Tomasz Wasiak wrote: Devices with less memory are still common so why limit ZRAM usage just to swap when it could be

[OpenWrt-Devel] Linksys / Belkin - WRT1900AC

Is anyone using/working on this router so far ? There has been a lot of discussion on the list in the past about it as the promised successor of famous WRT54G. I got one of these a while ago and since them I have been in contact several times with some people Linksys/Belkin team who was

[OpenWrt-Devel] Set which antenna to be used

Hi all, I have just tested BB Final on a 1043ND-v1 to observe a possible issue I've seen a while ago. This device has 3 antennae but I want to use only one port (a Sector antenna) so I set the following on my /etc/config/wireless which means only the first antenna port (4 = 100 in binary).

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] VXLAN support

Hi, This would be a really useful and nice feature to add. May be use for example for connecting an office to DC based infra-structure that makes use of VXLAN. Open vSwitch (which runs on OpenWRT), as far as I know supports VXLAN but it doesn't seem to achieve very good performance on most

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Toolchain issue: Significant decrease in performance of binaries produced by Barrier Breaker relative to Attitude Adjustment

Well done guys. These type of findings that makes significant different on embedded systems. Fernando On 30/08/2014 20:33, Felix Fietkau wrote: On 2014-08-30 21:27, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos wrote: On Sat, 2014-08-30 at 20:10 +0200, Felix Fietkau wrote: This could be a problem caused by

[OpenWrt-Devel] zram in Barrier Breaker for 16MB devices

Hi all, With the release of Attitude Adjustment last year devices with 16MB of less went unsupported. Now with the release of Barrier Breaker which has support to zram are there any plans to support them again ? Has anyone been using it with such devices without any issues ? Not sure if a BB

[OpenWrt-Devel] Antenna selection not working as expected

Hello, I have a TL-WR1043ND v1 running Barrier Breaker 14.07-rc2 and have a Sector Antenna connected to the first antenna port. On the other two I have removed the original Omni antennas. In order to tell the router that I want to work only with the Sector antenna (first port) I have added

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] OpenWRT IPv6 firewall

Hello guys, This discussion if becoming each day more confusing for something, which for me, is very simple assuming the following: - IPv6 as IPv4 should block *any incoming connection* on the WAN interface including those directed to the LAN IPs behind it. - If a client in the LAN

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] OpenWRT IPv6 firewall

and more secure to have by default. Best regards, Fernando On 17/07/2014 16:23, Baptiste Jonglez wrote: On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 03:21:32PM +0100, Fernando Frediani wrote: Hello guys, This discussion if becoming each day more confusing for something, which for me, is very simple assuming

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] IPv6 firewall and Port Control Protocol (Was: Barrier Breaker 14.07-rc1)

Perfect and well said. Really don't see why people still think leaving firewalls opened is a good idea. At the end it will bring more problems than solutions for those using OpenWRT and play against its good reputation. As mentioned before adjusting firewall for specific needs or using UPnP

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] IPv6 firewall and Port Control Protocol (Was: Barrier Breaker 14.07-rc1)

must exist, I prefer it to be that the user have to spend a minute or two to adjust his router's firewall adding the few exceptions that have to be allowed into his network. Regards, Fernando Frediani On 18/07/2014 04:56, Gui Iribarren wrote: On 17/07/14 21:59, Fernando Frediani wrote

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] IPv6 firewall and Port Control Protocol (Was: Barrier Breaker 14.07-rc1)

Fully agree with Aaron's comments below. Regards, Fernando On 15/07/2014 16:45, Aaron Z wrote: - Original Message - On Monday, July 14, 2014 5:36:09 PM Benjamin Cama ben...@dolka.fr wrote: Hi everyone, Le lundi 14 juillet 2014 à 22:17 +0900, Baptiste Jonglez a écrit : On Mon, Jul

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] IEEE 802.11 TDMA mode support in OpenWRT

synchronization between all radios, hence the inclusion of GPS modules on proprietary implementations. On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 11:02 AM, Fernando Frediani fhfredi...@gmail.com mailto:fhfredi...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all, Is anyone aware of any implementation of TDMA mode support

[OpenWrt-Devel] IEEE 802.11 TDMA mode support in OpenWRT

Hi all, Is anyone aware of any implementation of TDMA mode support in OpenWRT (similar to Ubiquiti's AirMAX, Deliberant's iPoll or MikroTik's NV2, etc) Would that have to be implemented having in mind the radio driver or could it possible also be implemented in any router ? This is certanlly

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] ideal battery for solar nodes?

Can you specify the usage(in Watts) of these equipment you mentioned and voltage ? A 50W solar panel looks Ok, but you need to calculate the usage in Amps so you can find out how long the battery of that capacity can run without sun and you need the Watts and Voltage for that. Fernando On

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] ideal battery for solar nodes?

to opperate the mobile ap for 5-6h, belonging how much trafic is running on it. sorry, i can't tell somthing about the current.( don't own one to get a messurement ) but when he is able to work with 4 aa mignon for 5-6h, it can't be that much. 2014-05-23 12:40 GMT+02:00 Fernando Frediani fhfredi

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] [OpenWrt-Users] Tplink wr1043nd internal/external antenna configuration and detection

and where to look for a possible fix ? Thanks Best regards, Fernando On 20/05/2014 04:38, cmsv wrote: Hello On 03/11/2014 08:54 PM, Fernando Frediani wrote: Hi folks, Hopefully this is a easy one for you. I've got a TL-1043ND running Barrier Breaker (r39440). This router has 3 detachable

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] [PATCH 16/30][ WRT1900AC ] mamba mvebu: sysupgrade support for mamba + dual boot

Probably because most routers so far don't have enough flash memory to hold two partitions. I have seen this used on some Professional NAS systems. Pretty useful though ! The information I have from Belkin about this feature how it works is: If the new flashed partition has some problem (e.g:

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] high load without reason

Ahh, recentlly I deployed Barrier Breaker on a friend's exactlly same router model and he has said it was getting very similar behavior (high loads without any apparently reason). We tried to revert back to AA which I am not sure if clear the issues (I guess it would if it's a kernel issue).

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Making sense of OpenWRT / Linksys WRT1900AC collaboration claims

Couldn't agree more. Very good email. On 23/04/2014 18:33, cmsv wrote: Although it would be good to have this hardware supported aren't we all forgetting something such as BETTER alternatives without extra work and headaches ? I have seen this router costing from $279 to a typical price of

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Making sense of OpenWRT / Linksys WRT1900AC collaboration claims

I'm glad these emails threads remain recorded in the archives so they will be useful in the future for people cheated by Linksys/Belkin marketing department if this doesn't get resolved with the same energy that was spent to announce the product. Fernando On 22/04/2014 20:34, Stefan Monnier

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Making sense of OpenWRT / Linksys WRT1900AC collaboration claims

From the product review in Amazon: --- Linksys says: Hi Mat, Hopefully we can clear up some of your concerns. *Flashing your WRT1900AC will NOT void your warranty. We are making sure our support staff are clear on this*. Thanks for letting us know that you were

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Making sense of OpenWRT / Linksys WRT1900AC collaboration claims

I think Belkin marketing responsible person should be fired straight away because they lied. My opinion ! Sometimes, in my organizations, sales and marketing people seems that just because they wear a suit and a tie they can lie without the risk of any penalty so they don't measure a bit of

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] is anybody working on supporting Linksys WRT1900ac ?

NDA = $$$ = Quiet I just don't understand what is the problem, if it's really true, to tell the most interested people (developers) that you are working on something directly related to the project, even without giving any further details due the NDA. On 06/04/2014 11:17, Hartmut Knaack

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] is anybody working on supporting Linksys WRT1900ac ?

That is very interesting. Does anyone know if the source code of the .ko module was finally provided by Belkin/Linksys ? Jose-Vasquez - Regarding your other email why there is so much interest on the WRT1900ac,, I think first because it was announced as a successor of the famous WRT54G,

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] is anybody working on supporting Linksys WRT1900ac ?

Reading all this discussion around WRT1900ac makes me wonder of something: - When Belkin acquired Linksys and announced WRT1900ac they made a big noise (marketing) about OpenWRT compatibility so they are using the project's name for their financial benefit, make people believe in that to buy

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] is anybody working on supporting Linksys WRT1900ac ?

Then the obvious question is: Mike, if it's really you according to Linksys and Gerry statements, why don't you say a word about it in the list ? Did you sign a non-disclosure agreement ? On 28/03/2014 21:57, Gerry Rozema wrote: On 28/03/14 01:58 PM, Peter Lawler wrote: Hi Pete! We are

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] UCI support for IEEE 802.1ad ?

Hello, This doesn't answer your question, but I want to share what I have done to overcome that lack of vlan tagging on certain enviroments using OpenWRT/DD-WRT. I simply use openvpn tunnels with tap interfaces(layer 2) and bridge them with either a VAP interface or a separated Ethernet

  1   2   >