Is there a market for an open source router?

Discussion in 'Cisco' started by Ramon F Herrera, Jul 1, 2008.

  1. "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
     
    Ramon F Herrera, Jul 1, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Ramon F Herrera

    Snit Guest

    "Ramon F Herrera" <> stated in post
    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... 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).


    --
    "Uh... ask me after we ship the next version of Windows [laughs] then I'll
    be more open to give you a blunt answer." - Bill Gates
    <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/gates/>
     
    Snit, Jul 1, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Ramon F Herrera

    Snit Guest

    "The Ghost In The Machine" <00suus7038.net> stated in post
    00suus7038.net on 6/30/08 6:37 PM:

    > In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Snit
    > <>
    > wrote
    > on Mon, 30 Jun 2008 18:14:34 -0700
    > <C48ED30A.C46B8%>:
    >> "Ramon F Herrera" <> stated in post
    >> 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.

    >> 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.

    --
    Computers are incredibly fast, accurate, and stupid: humans are incredibly
    slow, inaccurate and brilliant; together they are powerful beyond
    imagination. - attributed to Albert Einstein, likely apocryphal
     
    Snit, Jul 1, 2008
    #3
  4. Ramon F Herrera

    Snit Guest

    "The Ghost In The Machine" <00suus7038.net> stated in post
    00suus7038.net on 6/30/08 9:26 PM:

    ....
    >>>> 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.
     
    Snit, Jul 1, 2008
    #4
  5. Ramon F Herrera

    Linonut Guest

    * Tim Smith peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > In article
    > <>,
    > Ramon F Herrera <> wrote:
    >> "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

    >
    > 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.


    Was that before or after Cisco acquired Linksys, though?

    --
    Armadillo:
    To provide weapons to a Spanish pickle.
     
    Linonut, Jul 1, 2008
    #5
  6. Ramon F Herrera

    Hadron Guest

    JEDIDIAH <> writes:

    > On 2008-07-01, The Ghost In The Machine <00suus7038.net> wrote:
    >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Snit
    >><>
    >> wrote
    >> on Mon, 30 Jun 2008 18:14:34 -0700
    >><C48ED30A.C46B8%>:
    >>> "Ramon F Herrera" <> stated in post
    >>> 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.
     
    Hadron, Jul 1, 2008
    #6
  7. Ramon F Herrera

    Subway steel Guest

    "JEDIDIAH" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On 2008-07-01, The Ghost In The Machine <00suus7038.net>
    > wrote:
    >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Snit
    >><>
    >> wrote
    >> on Mon, 30 Jun 2008 18:14:34 -0700
    >><C48ED30A.C46B8%>:
    >>> "Ramon F Herrera" <> stated in post
    >>> 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).
    >>>

    >>


    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


    >> 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
     
    Subway steel, Jul 1, 2008
    #7
  8. On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 15:42:39 +0200, Hadron wrote:


    > 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.


    Jebbediah talks like that crazy professor in the old made for TV Superman
    series with Jim Reeve.
    IOW in rhymes and riddles.

    I think his name is Professor Pepper-winkle or something like that.

    Crook: "What will the kyrptonite do to Superman"
    Professor: "It will kill him" "Kill him it will".

    and so forth...

    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
     
    Moshe Goldfarb., Jul 1, 2008
    #8
  9. Ramon F Herrera

    Snit Guest

    "Subway steel" <> stated in post
    486a36b4$0$25953$ on 7/1/08 6:52 AM:

    >
    > "JEDIDIAH" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> On 2008-07-01, The Ghost In The Machine <00suus7038.net>
    >> wrote:
    >>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Snit
    >>> <>
    >>> wrote
    >>> on Mon, 30 Jun 2008 18:14:34 -0700
    >>> <C48ED30A.C46B8%>:
    >>>> "Ramon F Herrera" <> stated in post
    >>>> 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).
    >>>>
    >>>

    >
    > 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.


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


    --
    The direct use of physical force is so poor a solution to the problem of
    limited resources that it is commonly employed only by small children and
    great nations. - David Friedman
     
    Snit, Jul 1, 2008
    #9
  10. JEDIDIAH <> writes:
    >> Are you sure that you're talking about a router and not a firewall?


    > 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.


    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.

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


    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.
     
    Doug McIntyre, Jul 1, 2008
    #10
  11. Ramon F Herrera

    Rod Dorman Guest

    In article <>,
    Rick <> wrote:
    >On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 11:00:54 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
    >> ...
    >> Jebbediah talks like that crazy professor in the old made for TV
    >> Superman series with Jim Reeve.

    >
    >What Superman show with Jim Reeve?


    He spelled George Reeves incorrectly.

    --
    -- Rod --
    rodd(at)polylogics(dot)com
     
    Rod Dorman, Jul 1, 2008
    #11
  12. Ramon F Herrera

    Homer Guest

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

    > But you do have to license the stateful inspection FW feature.


    Licensed from whom?

    --
    K.
    http://slated.org

    ..----
    | "Stallman has frequently pointed out, Free Software is by no means
    | antithetical to making money: it's just a question of how you make
    | money." ~ Glyn Moody: http://tinyurl.com/4wn2l2 (ComputerworldUK)
    `----

    Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.23.8-63.fc8
    19:57:44 up 193 days, 16:33, 3 users, load average: 0.00, 0.03, 0.07
     
    Homer, Jul 1, 2008
    #12
  13. On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 17:29:39 +0000 (UTC), Rod Dorman wrote:

    > In article <>,
    > Rick <> wrote:
    >>On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 11:00:54 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
    >>> ...
    >>> Jebbediah talks like that crazy professor in the old made for TV
    >>> Superman series with Jim Reeve.

    >>
    >>What Superman show with Jim Reeve?

    >
    > He spelled George Reeves incorrectly.


    Ooops!
    You are correct!

    I was getting mixed up with the country western singer.

    Thanks!

    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
     
    Moshe Goldfarb., Jul 1, 2008
    #13
  14. Ramon F Herrera

    Homer Guest

    Verily I say unto thee, that The Ghost In The Machine spake thusly:
    > In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Homer <> wrote on Tue, 01
    > Jul 2008 19:58:08 +0100 <>:
    >> Verily I say unto thee, that Doug McIntyre spake thusly:


    >>> But you do have to license the stateful inspection FW feature.

    >>
    >> Licensed from whom?

    >
    > AFAICT, Cisco. Google coughed up
    >
    > http://www.elara.ie/products/detailsfull.asp?productcode=MME6778043
    >
    > which might be relevant. Pricey beast.


    Oh I see. He's talking about /buying/ a /product/.

    For a minute there I thought he was implying that implementing SPI
    technology in general required some kind of patent licensing.

    --
    K.
    http://slated.org

    ..----
    | "Stallman has frequently pointed out, Free Software is by no means
    | antithetical to making money: it's just a question of how you make
    | money." ~ Glyn Moody: http://tinyurl.com/4wn2l2 (ComputerworldUK)
    `----

    Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.23.8-63.fc8
    22:04:26 up 193 days, 18:40, 3 users, load average: 0.83, 0.32, 0.14
     
    Homer, Jul 1, 2008
    #14
  15. On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 22:04:46 +0100, Homer wrote:


    > Oh I see. He's talking about /buying/ a /product/.


    A concept that is totally foreign to the cheapskate Linux users.
    Ask Loki for details.



    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
     
    Moshe Goldfarb., Jul 2, 2008
    #15
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Au79

    Linux/Open Source Making Market Splash

    Au79, Dec 16, 2006, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    459
  2. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Open-Source Good, Closed-Source Bad

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Oct 16, 2005, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    494
    Gordon
    Oct 16, 2005
  3. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,054
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
  4. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Closed-Source vs Open-Source Drivers

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, May 4, 2009, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    535
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    May 5, 2009
  5. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Open Source vs Closed Source Security

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Mar 3, 2010, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,012
    Gordon
    Mar 4, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page