Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

OpenWrt Two Approval

openwrt.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 133 posts

Re: OpenWrt Two Approval

#91

Post by m000 »

simoncion wrote: post #16
jauntywundrkind wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's 30$ usb-c adapters out now. Where-as 10Gbe is usually $130+. Yes there are very few switches with 5Gbe. But I'd be open to that changing!

> There's 30$ usb-c adapters out now. Where-as 10Gbe is usually $130+. Sure, but if you include another SFP+ port, you can run that at 1, 2.5, 5, or 10gbit. Another SFP+ port gives you a BUNCH of options (including the "copper, fiber, or twinax?" option). A 5Gbit copper port locks you in to just that one configuration. As for the expense of SFP+ modules, go check out the 10Gtek company. The optical ones are very inex…

Options for who?

5GBASE-T can run on Cat5e/Cat6 cabling which people probably already have. This makes the router a viable product, which can improve your home network performance with minimal investment, just by swapping out your old router.

OTOH, the dual SFP+ configuration is more on the exotic side. It may make sense on some professional setting (or some outlier home network configurations - like yours), but I guess this is not the intended market.

Re: OpenWrt Two Approval

#92

Post by moffkalast »

Havoc wrote: post #50
neilv wrote: post #11

GL.iNet is a popular brand, though I can't find a Wikipedia page for it. https://www.gl-inet.com/about-us/ says: > GL Tech (HK) Ltd: #601, 5W, Hong Kong Science Park, N.T. Hong Kong > GL Intelligence, Inc.: 10400 Eaton Place, Suite 215, Fairfax, VA 22030 I'm a little curious about this. One of the reasons that some people run OpenWrt is for improved security. In the general security space, a Shenzen company isn't the…

You’re not making those specs for 250 bucks without shenzen being involved

This is honestly a fantastic deal for both sides, we get cheap hardware, they get working software. We're both terrible at doing the other bit and all governments are gonna have backdoors regardless.

Re: OpenWrt Two Approval

#94

Post by u8080 »

microtonal wrote: post #47
thescriptkiddie wrote: post #36

i heard reports that the openwrt one cpu was not fast enough to run cake sqm at line speed. i wonder if the two will be able to.

I don't know about the One. But some of the MediaTek CPUs apparently have hardware fq-codel support, or so I was told. I had a Gl.iNet with a MediaTek SoC (Flint 2) and it had great bufferbloat scores.

AFAIK, vanilla openwrt does not support that (HQoS is seems what you are referring to - only supported in official Mediatek SDK)

Re: OpenWrt Two Approval

#95

Post by Uvix »

close04 wrote: post #84
xvilka wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Read a comment on HN the other day from someone that evaluated Huawei hardware for a telco and swore it was so full of holes to be unusable. Do you have a link? Would be nice to know more technical details.

Someone evaluated Huawei hardware for many telcos years ago and a lot of them decided the equipment is not only usable, it’s the best choice. So which ones were the incompetents or shills?

They’re not mutually exclusive - as you said, that was years ago, enshittification could well have set in.

Re: OpenWrt Two Approval

#96

Post by 3np »

teruakohatu wrote: post #3

I wonder why they are including a 5G port. There does not seem to be a lot of gear that uses it. An additional 1/2.5G or 10G SFP would make more sense.

I think it makes sense, actually.

I can plug that port into an existing 10G switch and get 5G over that link, which can be a nice sweetspot (10G can be excessive in terms of power/heat) while we can fully saturate one of the 2.5G ports routed over it without saturating the uplink.

And if not it will still play nice at 2.5.

Re: OpenWrt Two Approval

#97

Post by martinsnow »

neilv wrote: post #11

GL.iNet is a popular brand, though I can't find a Wikipedia page for it. https://www.gl-inet.com/about-us/ says: > GL Tech (HK) Ltd: #601, 5W, Hong Kong Science Park, N.T. Hong Kong > GL Intelligence, Inc.: 10400 Eaton Place, Suite 215, Fairfax, VA 22030 I'm a little curious about this. One of the reasons that some people run OpenWrt is for improved security. In the general security space, a Shenzen company isn't the…

I don't understand this comment. All electronics assembling happens in Shenzhen. Be it Apple, Cisco or Microsoft. If anything this is par for the course.

What I personally would have liked to see was an EU based entity overseeing and taking responsibility for the project since neither US nor China really should be trusted with privacy these days.

Re: OpenWrt Two Approval

#98

Post by nfriedly »

This is awesome! I've been using OpenWRT for more than a decade, and I think it's great that they're designing their own hardware now.

I'm on a GL.iNet MT-6000 right now, and it's a great router. The stock firmware is based on openwrt, and they make it very easy to upgrade to an official openwrt release. I bought it before the OpenWRT One became available, but I probably would have gone with it anyways because it has two 2.5gb ports whereas the OpenWRT One only has a single 2.5gb port. I'm on 1gb internet right now, so that would be fine for the moment, my ISP has already been advertising 2gb service coming soon, and I'd like to upgrade once it's available.

It looks like the MT7988 chip they chose for the OpenWRT Two supports either two 10gb ports or one 10gb and a bunch of other ports, so I think they made the right call. It should be capable of handling up to 5gb internet service, so it'd be a better fit for someone like me.

I imagine it'll also be one of the first and likely best OpenWRT devices to support Wi-Fi 7.

Re: OpenWrt Two Approval

#99

Post by evanjrowley »

GL.iNet's hardware has been great, but it's always annoyed me their products are designed with OpenWRT as an unsupported "advanced function" where updates lag behind the main project. If OpenWRT Two breaks this pattern, then I am very intrigued.

Re: OpenWrt Two Approval

#100

Post by Namidairo »

lzlrd wrote: post #86

> * 10G SFP > * 5G copper > * 4 port 2.5G copper > * 1-2 port 1G copper Should've gone for at least two 10G ports and dropped the extra two 1G ports...

From what I can tell of the block diagram, dropping the 2x 1gbit ports would not yield you a 2nd 10G SFP, as those would be running off the integrated switch as opposed to one of two USXGMII interfaces.

You would have to drop the other ports instead, and then you would just have 2x 10G SFP and a gigabit switch. Which is exactly how the BPi R4 is configured.

Post reply on HN