[ale] dd-wrt vs openwrt? (was make dsl modem visible?)

[Charles Shapiro]

Lemme put a plug in for coova ( http://coova.org) here.  Based on openwrt,
optimized for hotspot use.

Be sure to explicitly tell your tftp client that you're transferring a
binary file when you flash your router.  Otherwise you'll have much fun and
hilarity (thanks Jim K for fixing this).

-- CHS


On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 8:20 PM, Matt Rideout <mrideout at windserve.com>wrote:

> That's a good assessment. Either would be a large improvement any stock
> firmware. To me, it's like asking if you should replace a Windows
> installation with CentOS (DD-WRT) or Debian (OpenWRT).
>
> A deciding factor many cases will be which *wrt supports your AP. I
> haven't seen any stability problems, or noticed a performance difference
> between the two.
>
> Tim Watts wrote, On 07/24/2009 07:45 PM:
> > Cool. So now, shifting the discussion a little:
> >
> > How do folks weigh in on linux-based router firmware distros? From my
> *very*
> > preliminary investigation, openwrt looks to have more flexible packaging
> but
> > perhaps at the cost of ease-of-use? DD-wrt might be easier to get my feet
> wet
> > with but locks out some features (which I may never need) until I pay.
> But
> > what about:
> >
> > - Stability?
> > - Memory requirements?
> > - Quality of wireless support?
> > - Active community?
> >
> > Any other good linux-based options out there?
> >
> >
> >
> > On Friday 24 July 2009 5:23:14 pm Jason Fritcher wrote:
> >
> >> I'm not sure about the GUI tools, but I had to ssh into the router to
> >> set everything up. If you go the DD-WRT route, try this page, it is
> >> what I used for my initial setup.
> >>
> >> https://www.dd-wrt.com/wiki/index.php/Access_To_Modem_Configuration
> >>
> >> On Jul 24, 2009, at 3:18 PM, Tim Watts wrote:
> >>
> >>> OK, so on JK's reasonable theory that my linksys is stuck on serving
> >>> 192.168.1.0 to lan clients, I reconfigured the modem as 192.168.3.1.
> >>> Still no
> >>> go. Tried pinging it from the router and workstation -- not
> >>> reachable. Tried
> >>> adding a static route to that net on the router -- not reachable. It
> >>> seems
> >>> that any route I try to add on the router that goes thru the WAN
> >>> interface
> >>> gets silently rejected. So I think what Jason mentions is what I'll
> >>> have to
> >>> do. I'm going to explore dd-wrt vs openwrt.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks folks!
> >>>
> >>> On Friday 24 July 2009 1:28:32 pm Jason Fritcher wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I set this up on my wrt54gs a while ago. With the stock firmware, I
> >>>> could not find a way to do this. I changed the router to DD-WRT,
> >>>> and I
> >>>> was able to put a 192.168.1.x address on the WAN port, add a route on
> >>>> the router so that 192.168.1.x bypassed the pppoe tunnel and was
> >>>> routed directly out the WAN port, and add a static router to the
> >>>> modem
> >>>> so that it could communicate back. My internal LAN is on the
> >>>> 192.168.0.x subnet.
> >>>>
> >>>> I don't have that modem any more, so I can't offer up my config as an
> >>>> example.
> >>>>
> >>>> On Jul 24, 2009, at 1:03 PM, Tim Watts wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Friday 24 July 2009 12:31:47 pm JK wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> However, I find that even when in bridge mode, my ATT DSL modem
> >>>>>> (just
> >>>>>> a modem, not a router) still serves up its admin interface on
> >>>>>> 192.168.1.254
> >>>>>> (or maybe 192.168.1.1, can't remember).  And since the default
> >>>>>> route from
> >>>>>> my router (a Buffalo Airstation running Tomato, but that's not
> >>>>>> relevant)
> >>>>>> goes through the modem, and since my LAN is on a distinct subnet
> >>>>>> from
> >>>>>> the modem (192.168.80.0/24), I have no problem hitting the modem's
> >>>>>> admin interface from machines on my LAN.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> OK, so sounds like you're saying I might be able to reach it if I
> >>>>> put the
> >>>>> modem and lan on distinct subnets? So if my lan is 192.168.2.0 (it
> >>>>> is) and I
> >>>>> put the modem on 192.168.1.0, then would I need to add a static
> >>>>> route to it on
> >>>>> the router? And/Or on all my lan nodes?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Tim's problem may lie in the fact that practically everything in
> >>>>>> the
> >>>>>> consumer-router world comes pre-configured to serve 192.168.1.0
> >>>>>> addresses to LAN clients.  Changing the LAN subnet in the router
> >>>>>> config might be all that's necessary.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> -- JK
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>> Ale mailing list
> >>>>>> Ale at ale.org
> >>>>>> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> Illusion is the first of all pleasures.
> >>>>> -- Oscar Wilde
> >>>>>
> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> Ale mailing list
> >>>>> Ale at ale.org
> >>>>> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
> >>>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> Ale mailing list
> >>>> Ale at ale.org
> >>>> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
> >>>>
> >>> --
> >>> Sometime they'll give a war and nobody will come.
> >>> -- Carl Sandburg
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Ale mailing list
> >>> Ale at ale.org
> >>> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
> >>>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Ale mailing list
> >> Ale at ale.org
> >> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
> >>
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Ale mailing list
> Ale at ale.org
> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.ale.org/pipermail/ale/attachments/20090725/8d3dcd7c/attachment.html