[HN Gopher] OpenWrt One/AP-24.XY: new open source router board b...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       OpenWrt One/AP-24.XY: new open source router board by OpenWrt and
       Banana Pi
        
       Author : opengears
       Score  : 139 points
       Date   : 2024-01-12 05:22 UTC (1 days ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.cnx-software.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.cnx-software.com)
        
       | vmurthy wrote:
       | Looks like decent specs for a homelab (although not for
       | "creators" :-P)                 SoC - MediaTek MT7981B (Filogic
       | 820) dual-core Cortex-A53 processor @ 1.3 GHz
       | *Networking*            - 2.5GbE RJ45 port            - Gigabit
       | Ethernet RJ45 port            - Dual-band WiFI 6 via MediaTek
       | MT7976C (2x2 2.4 GHz + 3x3/2x2 + zero-wait DFS 5Ghz)            -
       | 3x MMCX antenna connectors
       | 
       | From TFA
       | 
       | "The router's specifications have been selected with the goal of
       | keeping the price under $100, and that's why we have interfaces
       | such as USB 2.0 instead of USB 3.0 since there aren't any spare
       | ones in the Filogic 820 SoC"
        
         | geerlingguy wrote:
         | 2.5G is still plenty for most creator use cases (even for
         | editing a few 4K livestreams off a NAS). The only difficulty is
         | if you hit certain types of routing, performance can't always
         | keep up (sometimes even to a gigabit).
         | 
         | One thing I'd love is if more vendors would give a bunch of
         | examples and specifically list what things are hardware
         | accelerated and which are not (MikroTik's been pretty good
         | about this lately, though it's a lot of digging in docs).
        
         | CyberDildonics wrote:
         | What is the difference between a "homelab" and a "creator"? I
         | don't think these labels mean anything.
         | 
         | Also you realize this is a router to connect to the internet
         | right? If you want computers to have faster ethernet links
         | between themselves you can have a switch with faster ports. It
         | isn't going to make sense to try to mix your router and your
         | switch at that point.
        
       | opengears wrote:
       | I am really excited about this one. I have used the Turris Omnia
       | in different settings, and can absolutely recommend it for people
       | that want a great supported Open Source Hardware and OpenWRT
       | router. This one seems to be an alternative to the Turris Omnia.
        
         | themoonisachees wrote:
         | Isn't the omnia like $350? For me that's prohibitively
         | expensive to spend on a router, whereas the projected $100
         | price point here is much more palatable (I probably still won't
         | be buying it because I need SFP, but if not I would consider
         | it)
        
           | darkwater wrote:
           | So, what are your options? I'm in the market for a "cheap
           | enough" router supported by OpennWRT with an SFP because my
           | FTTH is terminated in the ISP router currently (but that
           | router sucks, even if I moved the wifi network completely
           | outside it, it still hangs from time to time)
        
             | jonhohle wrote:
             | I'm currently using a Banana-PI R3 which meets those
             | requirements. It only recently got release support for
             | OpenWRT, but SinoVOIP seems to be actively working with
             | them (which is confirmed with this announcement). There are
             | still small issues (last I checked the boot loader method
             | of cloning to nand is broken), but it's been pretty solid
             | for the last 5 or 6 months.
             | 
             | I was coming from a late model AirPort Extreme but needed
             | something with more configurability. My biggest with it
             | issue is that the BPI is a fast computer with lots of RAM
             | and storage (and SD and M2 expand ability), but OpenWRT is
             | made for the tiniest embedded systems and everything from
             | configuration to pre-built packages prioritize space over
             | quality of life. Busybox is fine, but when I have as much
             | power as a desktop computer from 10 years ago, it feels
             | like an unnecessary inconvenience. Or as I just went
             | through, Ruby installs the Ruby interpreter and nothing
             | else, each module in the standard library is a separate
             | package and someone went through the work of configuring
             | the dependencies of each of them. Likewise, LUCI is great,
             | but sometimes I just want to configure a thing, not have to
             | find the LUCI configuration for the thing.
        
       | no_time wrote:
       | Absolute steal for $100.
       | 
       | I hope some EU distributor for have it near this price.
        
         | mhitza wrote:
         | My experience with EU pricing is generally: convert to euro,
         | add 50-100 euros on top.
        
           | themoonisachees wrote:
           | At 150EUR, the banana pi r4 is available for not much more
           | and has several nice to have feature not planned on this
           | board.
        
       | SV_BubbleTime wrote:
       | Love the idea. Underwhelmed by the hardware choices.
       | 
       | Only two nics, and only one is 2.5Gbe. Wifi6 while 6E now and 7
       | is soon. What will probably be travel router level.
        
         | magicalhippo wrote:
         | Really jealous of all those who are annoyed this can't handle
         | their >1Gbps internet connection...
         | 
         | I'm in Oslo, capital of Norway, and 500/15 Mbps is the fastest
         | I can get...
        
           | happymellon wrote:
           | I would love 500/15.
           | 
           | Here in the UK I'm still stuck with BT who keep sending out
           | flyers and public consultations saying they'll upgrade for
           | about 5 years now, I'm assuming to try and dissuade altnets
           | from coming through and taking away all their customers. They
           | keep silently killing the plan after a year, and replacing
           | with a new one for 2 years time so it never arrives.
           | 
           | 50/15, not even that far out of a major town. Fucking BT.
        
             | BenjiWiebe wrote:
             | Wow, I wish I had 50. 10/3 here in the Midwest USA. :)
        
             | rjsw wrote:
             | UK altnets are spreading quite fast in areas that OpenReach
             | (BT) hasn't upgraded yet, it is worth checking regularly
             | what is happening in your area.
             | 
             | I have 500/500, could have 900/900 for PS5 more per month.
        
           | Tor3 wrote:
           | That's shocking.. in Oslo? I'm out in the sticks in Norway
           | and I've had 1Gb/1Gb for years. And it actually provides 1Gb
           | too.
        
             | magicalhippo wrote:
             | One of those cases where being first is a disadvantage.
             | We've got cable, and it's been upgraded some, but because
             | of that there's like zero incentive to get fiber.
             | 
             | Meanwhile my buddy is out in the bushes and he got 1G fiber
             | like you a couple of years ago...
        
           | lumb63 wrote:
           | What are people doing that their homes need so much
           | bandwidth? My ISP offers Gigabit and I use their cheaper,
           | third-tier, 200 Mbps option, since I cannot conceive of a use
           | for more.
        
             | themoonisachees wrote:
             | Off-site backups is a huge one. General downloads for the
             | people running *arr software, and corresponding upload for
             | people sharing their Plex libraries.
             | 
             | Here in france, I get 5Gb/700Mb for 50EUR and there isn't a
             | lower tier at the same ISP. Other ISPs would simply sell me
             | 1Gb/700Mb for the same price, with no lower tier other than
             | aDSL. Not that I'm complaining, but if I'm getting 5Gb,
             | buying a router for 150EUR that hits barely 1/5th of that
             | speed (the maximum on wired this board can do is 1Gb, and I
             | don't even have all my devices on 5GHz wifi) isn't exactly
             | a good experience.
        
               | Dylan16807 wrote:
               | I'm pretty sure off-site backups would have zero issues
               | at 200Mbps.
        
           | drewg123 wrote:
           | Like the parent, I'm annoyed at just Wifi 6, when 6E is out
           | and 7 is around the corner. However, the feature of 6e (and
           | 7) that I need is the new, larger 6Ghz band for stable
           | performance in a crowded urban environment with hundreds of
           | ISP configured routers all crowding the same few groups of
           | channels on the 5Ghz and 2.4 Ghz bands. For me, 6ghz is far
           | more stable than 5Ghz (or 2.4).
        
           | diffeomorphism wrote:
           | Why internet connection? The more obvious benefit would be
           | for local connections, e.g. to a NAS.
        
         | teleforce wrote:
         | Really excited for the news, but then really dissapointed at
         | the same time.
         | 
         | I thought it has several RJ45 and SFP ports, similar specs to
         | Banana Pi R4 based on the provided picture, apparently it is
         | only for illustration purpose [1][2].
         | 
         | Hopefully this will spurs more complete support and drivers for
         | the BPi boards including the R4.
         | 
         | [1]Banana Pi BPI-R4:
         | 
         | https://wiki.banana-pi.org/Banana_Pi_BPI-R4
         | 
         | [2]Banana Pi BPI-R4 Low-cost Router SBC:
         | 
         | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36646382
        
           | themoonisachees wrote:
           | The picture isn't of the planned board, I'm pretty sure it's
           | just a picture of a banana pi r4. The proposed board has no
           | SFP, for starters.
        
         | m463 wrote:
         | look at the bpi-r3 and bpi-r4
         | 
         | https://www.amazon.com/s?k=banana+pi+bpi-r4
         | 
         | the bpi-r4 even has two 10gb sfp ports
        
         | ajb wrote:
         | If this one does well, I would expect further developments.
         | Bananapi has the capacity to do lots of board designs, they
         | have a huge backlist; so it's down to the openWRT team to see
         | how many they have the capacity to do with them and support.
        
       | rkwasny wrote:
       | If you don't want to wait I recommend GL.iNet Flint 2 - based on
       | newer Filogic 830 - works great - supported by openwrt
        
         | HumblyTossed wrote:
         | Was looking at this recently, but couldn't find any sort of
         | range information. I have the Beryl (wifi 5 version) and it's
         | good for a hotel sweet and that's about it. I would hope the
         | Flint 2 would be better, but I can't find anything.
        
           | rkwasny wrote:
           | Typical range for a flagship single-access point solution I
           | would say, previously I had portalwifi (from kickstarter) and
           | flint 2 has better range
           | 
           | If you have 2+ story house you need a mesh.
        
         | LeifCarrotson wrote:
         | I have had good results with the GL.iNet routers too, but the
         | "supported by openwrt" just means that GL.iNet pulled an old
         | version of OpenWRT and hacked it up until it worked on their
         | board instead of making their own OEM firmware. They're not
         | upstreaming their patches or collaborating with OpenWRT, just
         | kind of leeching off them.
         | 
         | I'm not even sure you can install vanilla OpenWRT on the Flint
         | 2 yet.
         | 
         | In contrast, this is made by and with the OpenWRT dev team!
        
           | rkwasny wrote:
           | I think it is officially supported, but honestly I use
           | firmware from GL.Inet web interface is great
        
             | andreasha wrote:
             | Afaik it hasn't reached OpenWrt stable yet
        
               | ahepp wrote:
               | It looks like the patch was committed in late September
               | [0] and the press release for the device is dated mid
               | November [1]. So unless I'm reading things wrong they
               | added support upstream before they released the product?
               | 
               | 0: https://git.openwrt.org/?p=openwrt/openwrt.git;a=commi
               | t;h=fe...
               | 
               | 1: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/kn38opoklmwx22am6b1fm/h
               | /Press...
        
           | elitepleb wrote:
           | using Qualcomm for wifi6 is mainly the reason why, their SDK
           | is very picky, and kept out of tree on purpose
        
           | ahepp wrote:
           | Is [0] not a patch adding support to OpenWRT?
           | 
           | It looks like the developer has committed previously to the
           | Linux kernel as well, so they seem to be upstreaming at least
           | _some_ of their patches?
           | 
           | [0] https://git.openwrt.org/?p=openwrt/openwrt.git;a=commit;h
           | =fe...
        
       | trillic wrote:
       | Can this chip manage line-rate QoS?
        
         | aesh2Xa1 wrote:
         | Probably not with QoS, but it probably can with hardware
         | offload. It looks a lot like this: https://wiki.banana-
         | pi.org/Banana_Pi_BPI-R4
         | 
         | https://forum.openwrt.org/t/so-you-have-500mbps-1gbps-fiber-...
         | 
         | The chip would need to be powerful enough to process packets to
         | do advanced QoS (like SQM) at line-rate. However, offload is
         | supported on MT chips, so you can still perform hardware NAT
         | functions, just not as configurable as those other methods for
         | traffic control.
         | 
         | Maybe some VPP integration into the proper distribution,
         | instead of packages and custom compiles, would make that work.
         | 
         | https://github.com/k13132/openwrt-dpdk
        
           | Dylan16807 wrote:
           | > It looks a lot like this: https://wiki.banana-
           | pi.org/Banana_Pi_BPI-R4
           | 
           | With the extremely important difference that it has a dual
           | core A53 instead of a quad core A73. I'm sure the board you
           | linked could handle QoS just fine.
        
       | thisislife2 wrote:
       | A doubt - isn't the antennae an important part of any Wifi
       | router? Are they too standardised now, with multiple options, and
       | as easy to use as plug-and-play with such boards?
        
         | anonymousiam wrote:
         | There are basically three types of tiny push-on coaxial
         | connectors in common use. You can get antennas for any
         | combination of bands with any one of the connectors. You just
         | need to be careful to order the right combination.
        
       | agilob wrote:
       | What are those 3 slots on the top left? Looks like 3 slots for
       | sim cards, but there's no mention of SIM support and only 3
       | quantities of something are antennas.
        
         | Dunedan wrote:
         | That picture doesn't represent the actual hardware. Pretty
         | confusing, but at least they acknowledge it in its description:
         | 
         | > For illustration only, not a rendering of the OpenWrt
         | One/AP-24.XY board
        
           | generalizations wrote:
           | That looks like it's the Banana Pi BPI-R4 WiFi 7 router
           | board: https://www.cnx-software.com/2023/11/23/banana-pi-
           | bpi-r4-wif.... And yeah, those are three nano SIM card slots.
           | You can see the image of the underside with a bunch of places
           | to attach the relevant antennas.
        
         | ahepp wrote:
         | The article _needed_ a picture, so I guess they decided to use
         | a picture of a completely different device.
        
       | figmert wrote:
       | Does anyone know a good late/5g dongle that works with OpenWRT?
        
       | pedrocr wrote:
       | The coolest hardware in the cheap router/APs that run OpenWRT is
       | the programmable Ethernet switch. VLANs on such cheap hardware is
       | an awesome tool to split up stuff at the ethernet level without
       | having to have a bunch of NICs. This doesn't seem to have it.
       | Does anyone know of a 5 or 10 port cheap switch that also has
       | programmable VLANs? Those would be great for homelab kinds of
       | uses.
        
         | ahmedalsudani wrote:
         | You can use a managed switch to get this working if you have a
         | router with too few ports.
         | 
         | I have several gl.inet routers running openwrt but they all
         | have 2/3 ports total. I put a TL-SG108E in front of them and
         | use that to tag ports.
         | 
         | This particular switch has an interface that is quite easy to
         | reverse engineer, so I have written a script that allows me to
         | easily move ports between VLANs without bothering with the
         | unintuitive web UI.
        
         | amluto wrote:
         | The usual suspects have cheap low-end switches:
         | 
         | https://store.ui.com/us/en/pro/category/all-switching/produc...
         | 
         | https://mikrotik.com/product/RB260GS
         | 
         | If you want a serious switch, you can often find a big name
         | used switch for $100 or even less. eBay has a couple of 12-port
         | Ruckus switches listed right now, for example.
         | 
         | Oddly, if you want to _purchase_ a license to enable the
         | fancier capabilities of Ruckus switches (those "12 port" 1Gbps
         | switches actually have two 10Gbps ports), it's surprisingly
         | awkward to find anyone selling the licenses to individual
         | users. On the other hand, the documentation quite strongly
         | suggests that there is no verification whatsoever if you simply
         | tell the switch that you have the appropriate license.
         | 
         | (I assume that there are a few things going on here. First, big
         | users who buy tens or hundreds of these switches will have
         | accounts and will actually pay for licenses as needed and
         | presumably get decent pricing. Small users are basically
         | irrelevant to the manufacturer's bottom line. And serious users
         | will regularly use in a configuration in which they don't have
         | Internet access, and will quite sensibly refuse to purchase the
         | switch if it needs Internet access.)
         | 
         | (Whoops, the campus network is down because the core switch
         | needs to re-validate its license. But it can't re-validate its
         | license because it can't access the Internet until _after_ it
         | starts working again. Better choose a new vendor next time!)
        
         | zamadatix wrote:
         | I've used a couple of these $30 8 port managed switches
         | https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00K4DS5KU/ another commenter
         | mentioned for various things and been pleased. This is fanless,
         | cloudless, and has web-interface configurable VLANs, LAGs,
         | mirroring, jumbo frames, IGMP, and STP.
        
         | jbotz wrote:
         | The Zyxel GS1900 series switches run OpenWrt well and like can
         | do VLANs. You can an, 8, 10, or 16-port one for less than $100
         | on eBAY. The GS1900-10HP has 8 GigE ports with POE and 2 SFP
         | ports and I'm seeing it on eBay for around $60 right now.
        
       | BooneJS wrote:
       | I wish I could get a decent mesh system. One router isn't enough
       | to cover my house with some of the building materials used.
        
         | _huayra_ wrote:
         | I've had good luck with the Mikrotik Audience, but it is not
         | wifi 6 yet (likely coming soon).
         | 
         | If you're in a country that uses steel / concrete to build,
         | unfortunately physics is not so kind towards any signal
         | propagation through that :(
        
           | Haemm0r wrote:
           | Wood is not either. The inside walls here are 100mm wood(CLT)
           | with gypsum on both sides and the signal drop through 1 wall
           | is big. 2 walls almost kill the signal. I don't have any wifi
           | reception outside the house at all (65m2 is floor area) using
           | 1 UI Wifi 6 LR on each floor (with the U6Pro it was even
           | worse).
        
         | saltcured wrote:
         | If there is any way you can run a few ethernet cables as a
         | backbone, I think it's pretty simple to just setup additional
         | OpenWRT access points on the same SSID to allow client roaming.
         | 
         | Or, with dual-radio routers, setup WDS between the routers
         | using one radio per router and clients on the other, so traffic
         | does not compete for the same channel. I am not sure whether
         | you can still do roaming this way as I've never tried it. But I
         | did use it in the past to brdige wired clients from a secondary
         | router back to the main router over WDS.
        
       | ajb wrote:
       | This could be a good match, because bananapi do a lot of boards
       | but their software story has been a bit poor, as it tends to be
       | an android build hacked together with a conventional linux
       | distribution (or was a few years ago when I last looked). Whereas
       | openWRT know how to build a software platform.
       | 
       | bananapi have some kind of link with foxconn, but I don't know
       | what kind.
        
         | jonhohle wrote:
         | SINOVOIP is the major name associated with BPI, but it does
         | seem like it is also affiliated with Foxconn. At least one of
         | their engineers has been working with the OpenWRT team closely
         | on the R3 and has been a wealth of knowledge in the BPI forums.
        
         | squarefoot wrote:
         | > bananapi do a lot of boards but their software story has been
         | a bit poor
         | 
         | This is quite common with other board manufacturers too. I'd
         | rather suggest to ignore completely their cobbled together
         | distros, often also tainted by proprietary modifications, that
         | become unmaintained in a few years, and see if they're among
         | the many supported by Armbian or DietPi.
         | 
         | https://www.armbian.com/download/
         | 
         | https://dietpi.com/#download
        
           | jazzyjackson wrote:
           | I had a good experience with Armbian, it was my first time
           | modifying a linux distro with extra packages so that we
           | didn't have to run install scripts and compile on the orange
           | pi (actually I started looking at how to build armbian
           | because the build step for python's crypto module would fail
           | after cranking away for an hour. Not enough memory or
           | something timed out. Anyway running the armbian build process
           | with a target cpu architecture was a breeze following their
           | docs)
        
       | dmarinus wrote:
       | I'm fairly happy with a Cudy WR1300, which runs openwrt out of
       | the box. Only EUR40 euros on amazon.
        
         | schemescape wrote:
         | How paranoid should I be about routers from companies like Cudy
         | that I'm not familiar with? My intuition is "very paranoid,
         | even if I replace the firmware with OpenWRT".
         | 
         | Am I being _too_ paranoid?
        
           | deadlyllama wrote:
           | Yes, you are being too paranoid. Once booted into Openwrt the
           | router will only be running Openwrt code. I guess there's the
           | tiny possibility of a backdoored bootloader but that would
           | have to be a pretty sophisticated backdoor!
        
       | champtar wrote:
       | The mailing list announcement might be a better link
       | https://lists.openwrt.org/pipermail/openwrt-devel/2024-Janua...
        
       | password4321 wrote:
       | related: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38934013
       | 
       |  _OpenWRT turns 20; wants to launch their "first upstream
       | supported" design_
       | 
       | https://lwn.net/ml/openwrt-devel/a8aaa495-da0b-4ddc-8c4f-3e1...
       | 
       |  _180 comments, 3 days ago_
        
       | 1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote:
       | This reminds me of a recurring thought I have had over the past
       | 15 years using UNIX-like OS. In the past, there were many more
       | computer architectures commonly in use, and some UNIX-like OS
       | projects made efforts to port their OS to a variety of
       | architectures. (Not naming names, but please note I am not
       | referring to Linux.)
       | 
       | Today there are fewer archs in common use, but there is still
       | variety in hardware. UNIX-like OS projects make efforts to port
       | their OS to a variety of hardware. Assuming they make an attempt
       | and are successful, this usually takes time. There will usually
       | be a considerable period of time where the hardware is for sale
       | but before the UNIX-like OS project is running on the hardware,
       | and able to utilise a sufficient number of its features to
       | justify installing it.
       | 
       | And so the recurring idea I kept having was "Why not prioritise
       | support for a particular hardware product."^1 Of course this idea
       | is unpleasantly inequitable, but the practical benefits could
       | justify it. As it happens, eventually, the project I was using
       | started to officially prioritise certain architectures.
       | 
       | 1. The hardware product chosen for prioritisation should be one
       | that is likely to be produced for many years, not the type that
       | is a passing fad.
       | 
       | The benefit I imagined is that someone who prefers to install a
       | non-Linux UNIX-like OS themselves could purchase a new item of
       | hardware and install the OS on it and have every feature working
       | _immediately_. Generally, this is 100% of people using this non-
       | Linux UNIX-like OS. With this project, there is no GUI, all can
       | install the OS with or without an installer, all can compile
       | software from source.
       | 
       | To some extent, this already happens. There are some particular
       | hardware products, e.g., development boards, that are produced
       | for many years that continue to work with this non-Linux UNIX-
       | like OS and they tend to receive consistent attention by the OS
       | project volunteers.
       | 
       | To sum it up, the pipe dream here is that some non-Linux UNIX-
       | like OS user who does not like pre-installed OS and likes to
       | install the OS himself can purchase a brand new device and _know_
       | 100% that all the features of the hardware will work.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2024-01-13 23:01 UTC)