"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" <ramon@conexus.net> stated in post
a1bb0bfb-07ef-4d67-bef5-2f82875b2dd4...oglegroups.com on 6/30/08
6:07 PM:

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/>

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Snit
<usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
wrote
on Mon, 30 Jun 2008 18:14:34 -0700
<C48ED30A.C46B8%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>:
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.)

The standard "router UI" nowadays would probably be web-based.

--
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
Useless C++ Programming Idea #889123:
std::vector<...> v; for(int i = 0; i < v.size(); i++) v.erase(v.begin() + i);
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

In article
<a1bb0bfb-07ef-4d67-bef5-2f82875b2dd4@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
Ramon F Herrera <ramon@conexus.net> wrote:
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.

--
--Tim Smith

On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 18:37:27 -0700, The Ghost In The Machine wrote:

Dunno... Cisco still has CLI IOS...

--
Rick

"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> stated in post
nbeoj5-cc5.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net on 6/30/08 6:37 PM:

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.

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

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Snit
<usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
wrote
on Mon, 30 Jun 2008 19:43:37 -0700
<C48EE7E9.C46F8%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>:
I for one would think that such reporting is best done elsewhere,
after a logging box receives and processes event traps (SNMP).

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).

--
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
Linux makes one use one's mind.
Windows just messes with one's head.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> stated in post
k8ooj5-us8.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net on 6/30/08 9:26 PM:

....
Other might disagree. It allows for "choice". Hey! By saying that I do
not have to defend why anyone would want that choice.

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.

* Tim Smith peremptorily fired off this memo:

Was that before or after Cisco acquired Linksys, though?

--
Armadillo:
To provide weapons to a Spanish pickle.

On 2008-07-01, The Ghost In The Machine <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
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.

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

JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> writes:

Somehow I think Ghost knows what a router is a lot better than you do.

So what? What has that to with whether the router runs Linux or a
proprietary firmware?

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.

"JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote in message
news:slrng6kckc.g6b.jedi@nomad.mishnet...
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

On 2008-07-01, Hadron <hadronquark@googlemail.com> wrote:
....he also probably has a better grasp of English Exposition too.

You can't adapt proprietary firmware. I suspect that Ghost wouldn't
need that bit spelled out for him as if he were a 2 year old.

Why bother? You've already told me that my primary audience is well informed.

If you were more literate perhaps you would complain about "word games" less.
You sound like some old woman that immigrated when she was middle aged and
never quite fully mastered her newly adopted language.

--
vi isn't easy to use. |||
/ | \
vi is easy to REPLACE.

Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 15:42:39 +0200, Hadron wrote:


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/

"Subway steel" <foo@bar.com> stated in post
486a36b4$0$25953$6e1ede2f@read.cnntp.org on 7/1/08 6:52 AM:

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

On 2008-07-01, Subway steel <foo@bar.com> wrote:
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.

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

I'm talking about what the hardware can do because it's overpowered
and sits on the physical boundary between networks. If it can run
something like snort then let it.

[deletia]

--

iTunes is not progressive. It's a throwback. |||
/ | \

Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 11:00:54 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:

What Superman show with Jim Reeve?

--
Rick

JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> writes:
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.

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.

In article <Woydne5VUvCnxffVnZ2dnUVZ_tHinZ2d@supernews.com> ,
Rick <none@nomail.com> wrote:
He spelled George Reeves incorrectly.

--
-- Rod --
rodd(at)polylogics(dot)com

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, JEDIDIAH
<jedi@nomad.mishnet>
wrote
on Tue, 1 Jul 2008 08:35:08 -0500
<slrng6kckc.g6b.jedi@nomad.mishnet>:
Maybe at the circuit layer.
The actual gatekeeper is a laminated door. :-P

True.

Not any more it's not. Look up "hub" versus "switch";
the switch makes it point-to-point. A little odd, I know,
and I frankly don't know exactly what it does in there but
I suspect switches are now vulnerable to the teardrop IP
fragmentation attack, whereas hubs were not.

Of course switches are also more efficient. ;-)

--
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
Windows Vista. It'll Fix Everything(tm).
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **